Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cheerful Charlie · 07-15-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

You'll have to show me exactly what you mean by the Bible condoning human sacrifice. I hope you're not talking about the crucifixion, no?

The Bible definitely condones human sacrifice. In Reading The Old Testament, An Introduction (or via: amazon.co.uk), author Lawrence Boadt discusses the practice on pages 197-198 of the paperback edition, my emphasis:
...
Human sacrifice was practiced by the Israelites; you just have to know where to look.

A good post, thanks.

CC

Gundulf · 07-26-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

Gundulf, I'm curious to know if you were familiar with the story of Jephthah, who was annointed for battle by the "Spirit of the Lord", sacrificing his daughter (she isn't named in the book of Judges) as a burnt offering to God?

It's a story I wasn't aware of until about 2 years ago and I still find it mind boggling.

Still would like to know if Gundulf was familiar with this human sacrifice story in the OT...

Sure I'm familiar with it.

As a reminder, the book of Judges is largely a collection of NEGATIVE examples, of what NOT to do - "In those days, Israel had no king, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes." That is the point of the book. And the organization of the material tends to be in a 'good to bad' order.

Human sacrifice is no more 'condoned' in Judges than is group rape, idol making, kidnapping, or the like - Sure, I'll grant that human sacrifice may well have taken place, as the Israelites may well have syncratistically imported the practice from other religions in their vicinity - but it was hardly 'condoned' in the Bible. No more than prostitution was condoned by the fact that Jephthah's mother was a prostitute.

In short, Jephthah was an idiot to think that such a thing was pleasing to God. And the author of Judges includes this, along with plenty of other idiotic examples of the way people were acting at this time, as part of his argument that Israel needed a king to prevent people from 'doing what was right in their own eyes.'

Gundulf · 07-26-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

You'll have to show me exactly what you mean by the Bible condoning human sacrifice. I hope you're not talking about the crucifixion, no?

The Bible definitely condones human sacrifice. In Reading The Old Testament, An Introduction (or via: amazon.co.uk), author Lawrence Boadt discusses the practice on pages 197-198 of the paperback edition, my emphasis:

Walter Brueggemann, in An Introduction to the Old Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), pages 117-118 of the paperback edition, states with my emphasis:

Susan Niditch writes much about "the ban" in War In The Hebrew Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk). She points out that herem was not unique to the Israelites, and the famous Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone provides a non-Israelite example. The emphasis is mine.:

Niditch remarks on page 32 of the paperback edition:

Niditch continues on pp 34-35, with my emphasis:

Niditch also points out that such passages as Exodus 13:2 and 22:29 are examples of "less nuanced statement[s]" regarding human sacrifice:

Quote:

13:1 Yahweh said to Moses: 2 Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the Israelites, of human beings and animals, is mine.

22:29 You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30 You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, page 221: "The origin of the custom of sacrificing the first-born is not known. But it was a widely adopted usuage among Semitic peoples..."

John J. Collins states that, "Exodus 22:28-29 [in the Hebrew test--JK] appears to require the sacrifice of the firstborn and does not provide for substitution in the manner of the parallel text in Exod 34:19-20," while The Jewish Study Bible remarks on page 157, regarding Exodus 22:28 that, "no provision for redemption [of first-born sons] is mentioned."

Human sacrifice was practiced by the Israelites; you just have to know where to look.

Well, I would certainly argue that this is a big stretch to refer to this practice as "human sacrifice". I was assuming we were talking about the kind of human sacrifice that was explicitly mentioned in the Bible (by Jephthah, as almost done by Abraham, or as condemned by the various prophets) - that is, the practice of making a burnt offering or the like of a human as a religious rite.

If we're talking about a 'take no prisoners' style of warfare.... This is a bit of a stretch for the term. When king Henry V ordered that all the prisoners be slain at Agincourt, sure, he 'sacrificed' all kinds of money in terms of the potential ransoms that he and his troops would receive, hence, killing the prisoners was a sacrifice in one sense for a 'higher purpose' (in that case, a victorious battle). But I know of no scholar that would ever conceive of referring to the English slaughtering their prisoners at Agincourt as an act of 'human sacrifice' - religious in context or not.

If we're going to squabble over the terms, then sure, this very specific concept (and in my opinion, an enormous misnomer) of 'human sacrifice' is condoned in the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-26-2007, 05:29 PM

No loving God would ever institute a food chain.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-26-2007, 05:56 PM

Message to Gundulf: Hebrews 9:22 says "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Is that not a requirement of a violent act for the remission of sins?

One would think that the supposedly one true God would use a means of forgiving sins that did not mimic pagan religions.

spamandham · 07-26-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

In short, Jephthah was an idiot to think that such a thing was pleasing to God.

Either that, or he was familiar with Leviticus 27:28-29.

28 " 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes [l] to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction [m] may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

Is Leviticus a book of "whatever you do, don't do this" commands?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

And the author of Judges includes this, along with plenty of other idiotic examples of the way people were acting at this time...

More poignantly, the author of judges fails to indicate there is anything wrong with what Jepthah did, but instead portrays it as a vow righteously upheld at even the greatest cost - just as commanded in Leviticus.

spamandham · 07-26-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

No loving God would ever institute a food chain.

What if he loved food?

Gundulf · 07-27-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

In short, Jephthah was an idiot to think that such a thing was pleasing to God.

Either that, or he was familiar with Leviticus 27:28-29.

28 " 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes [l] to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction [m] may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

Is Leviticus a book of "whatever you do, don't do this" commands?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

And the author of Judges includes this, along with plenty of other idiotic examples of the way people were acting at this time...

More poignantly, the author of judges fails to indicate there is anything wrong with what Jepthah did, but instead portrays it as a vow righteously upheld at even the greatest cost - just as commanded in Leviticus.

The author of Judges refrains from specifying that there is anything wrong with ANYTHING he mentions - it is a literary device. He doesn't directly condemn the idolatry, gang rape, prostitution, kidnapping, or the like either. He condemns it all with his pronouncement, "In those days Israel had no king, everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

As for which part of the Bible Jephthah was or was not familiar with, I imagine that if he had read the part you mention in Leviticus, he had nonetheless failed to read Deuteronomy....

"You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."

spamandham · 07-27-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

The author of Judges refrains from specifying that there is anything wrong with ANYTHING he mentions - it is a literary device. He doesn't directly condemn the idolatry, gang rape, prostitution, kidnapping, or the like either. He condemns it all with his pronouncement, "In those days Israel had no king, everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

From http://www.soniclight.com/constable/...pdf/judges.pdf

Quote:

Arthur Cundall suggested that one of the purposes of Judges may have been to provide
apologetic justification for Israel's monarchy.10 William Dumbrell believed its purpose
was primarily to show the sovereign grace of God in preserving Israel in spite of Israel.11
Leon Wood wrote that its primary purpose was to show why Israel did not experience
God's promised blessings.12 Herbert Wolf believed the primary purpose was to show that
Israel's spiritual condition determined its political and material situation.13 Daniel Block
argued that it was to reveal the Canaanization of Israel in the premonarchic period...

There is inconsistency in your claim (which seems to match that of Arthur Cundall), in that Abimelech is included, and was a king rather than a judge. Gideon is also included, and is generally revered rather than viewed as an example of bad. The book records both good and bad, judges and a king. It isn't valid to claim that it's nothing but a literary device designed to argue for monarchy. That may be part of the story, but not the whole story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

As for which part of the Bible Jephthah was or was not familiar with, I imagine that if he had read the part you mention in Leviticus, he had nonetheless failed to read Deuteronomy....

"You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods."

The OP regards whether or not the Bible condones human sacrifice, and it does. The fact that it also condemns it isn't really relevant to that.

John Kesler · 07-28-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

If we're going to squabble over the terms, then sure, this very specific concept (and in my opinion, an enormous misnomer) of 'human sacrifice' is condoned in the Bible.

Why is it a "misnomer" to refer to killing people "as a sacrifice to God in thanksgiving for his aid"--as Lawrence Boadt puts it--as human sacrifice? You acknowledge that Jephthah offered a human sacrifice: "I was assuming we were talking about the kind of human sacrifice that was explicitly mentioned in the Bible (by Jephthah..." But compare the wording between Judges 11 and Numbers 21:

Quote:

Numbers 21:2-3a
2 Then Israel made this vow to Yahweh: "If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities." 3 Yahweh listened to Israel's plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns...

Judges 11:30-31
30 And Jephthah made a vow to Yahweh: "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 Yahweh's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

In both cases a vow was made to Yahweh for the purpose of securing military victory. In each case, human beings (or a human being) were killed as payment for the victory. Explain to me why killing multiple people as a sacrifice to Yahweh isn't human sacrifice, while killing one person for the same purpose is. :huh: Just because you have set some arbitrary guidlines about what constitutes human sacrifice doesn't make the fact that it was practiced any less so.

ETA: In Googling, I came across this thread at Theology Web. To his credit, the Christian poster "Amazing Rando" acknowledges that his research (his master's thesis is also on this topic) leads him to the conclusion that "the ban" is indeed a form of human sacrifice, and his comment on page three is also commendable for its honesty and frankness:

Quote:

I know for me personally, although I have a deep and abiding faith, these texts make me uneasy. Though there may be plenty of Christians on this site who seem entirely unperturbed by them for whatever reason, they're a part of the faith package that I wrestle with, and one side of the biblical portrait of God that I can almost wish didn't exist. But they are there in the biblical canon, and they do tell of an integral part of God that challenges the definition of the tame, loveable deity we wish God could be boxed in as.

I recommend that Gundulf and others read the entire thread.

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

07-26-2007, 05:29 PM	#34
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	No loving God would ever institute a food chain.

07-26-2007, 05:56 PM	#35
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Gundulf: Hebrews 9:22 says "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Is that not a requirement of a violent act for the remission of sins? One would think that the supposedly one true God would use a means of forgiving sins that did not mimic pagan religions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.