Johnny Skeptic

Did Bible writers borrow the pre-existing practices of animal (Old Testament) and human (New Testament) sacrifices from pagan rituals? If so, I believe that that is suspicious.

Hebrews 9:22 says "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission," and yet the Bible teaches against murder. Why would a moral God forbid murder, but insist that someone must murder his son so that peoples' sins could be forgiven? Surely requiring violence for the remission of sins is not a legitimate concept.

mountainman

The Writings of Apollonius of Tyana

The Mystic Rites or Concerning Sacrifices.

Would have been written by Apollonius in the first
century, and is actually quoted by Eusebius in the
fourth:

[The full title is given by Eudocia, Ionia;
ed. Villoison (Venet 1781) p 57]

This treatise is mentioned by Philostratus (iii 41; iv 19),
who tells us that it set down the proper method of sacrifice
to every God, the proper hours of prayer and offering.
It was in wide circulation, and Philostratus had come across
copies of it in many temples and cities,
and in the libraries of philosophers.

Several fragments of it have been preserved,
[See Zeller, Phil d Griech, v 127]
the most important of which is to be found in Eusebius,
[Præparat. Evangel., iv 12-13; ed Dindorf (Leipzig 1867), i 176, 177]
and is to this effect:

“ ‘Tis best to make no sacrifice to God at all,
no lighting of a fire,
no calling Him by any name
that men employ for things to sense.

For God is over all, the first;
and only after Him do come the other Gods.
For He doth stand in need of naught
e’en from the Gods,
much less from us small men -
naught that the earth brings forth,
nor any life she nurseth,
or even any thing the stainless air contains.

The only fitting sacrifice to God
is man’s best reason,
and not the word
that comes from out his mouth.

“We men should ask the best of beings
through the best thing in us,
for what is good -
mean by means of mind,
for mind needs no material things
to make its prayer.
So then, to God, the mighty One,
who’s over all,
no sacrifice should ever be lit up.”

Noack [Psyche, I ii.5.] tells us that scholarship
is convinced of the genuineness of this fragment.

This book, as we have seen, was widely circulated
and held in the highest respect, [b]and it said that
its rules were engraved on brazen pillars
at Byzantium. (Until it became Constantinople).

While the above may not be directly relevant to
the original question, the following may be.

Sacrifice was expected in order to please the gods.
The head of the ancient religious order, and also
responsible for the practice and rite of sacrifice,
was the position "Pontifex Maximus", which position,
some of the Roman Emperors also assumed.

Thus we can see that there existed a very highly
developed social structure around the rites of the
sacrificial altar in the Roman empire in the prenicene
epoch. This structure incorporated the emperors.
It was visible and indigenous.

Gamera

Query whether the explanation isn't culturally and historically specific, attempting to explain the effect of the gospel in terms the audience would understand at the time. If written at another time, perhaps a different explanation would have been given.

By the way, animal sacrifice was the keynote of all religions (including Judaism) before Christianity. Temples in the ancient world (including the Temple in Jerusalem) were a bloody mess, absolutely reeking with animal blood. People see the stately marble nowadays of the Parthenon and think what a lovely building. In fact, it would have ran with blood.

So the audience would have been familiar with the iconography of blood sacrifice. They would have been able to smell it.

By the way, the terminology continues on today. To bless comes from OE blessian -- to sprinkle with (animal) blood (from a sacrifice).

Chili

That would be blood as opposed to water, Johnny, wherein blood represents the sins of this generation and water represents those that are inherent upon us; to say that we start with a blank slate and we are at fault no matter what. The sacrifice of blood is required to pierced our senses to annihilate thirst, craving and desire (Tanha) in order that that we may live without attachements.

That is why Mary is water and Jesus is fire but I don't suppose you see the connection here which favors infant baptism and adult confirmation . . . "of what," would be a good question here.

Toto

The practice continues in Islam during the Eid al-Adha, where the faithful are called upon to sacrifice an animal (and give the meat to the poor.) (The link describes the streets of Cairo running with blood.)

I have also read that the Christian idea of Jesus' blood sacrifice is useful in converting tribes that still practice human or animal sacrifice, by persuading them that Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice once, so that they could stop the inferior sacrifices.

In short, I don't think that the Bible writers had to plagiarize anything. There is something about making a sacrifice to appease some higher power that is deeply rooted in human psychology.

Clouseau

If the effect is to erase bad conscience, that can surely be a good thing, provided it does not lead to a laissez-faire attitude. However, though prefigured by ritual, the sacrifice of Christ was not ritual- it was murder. Had there been no murder of an innocent, the innocent, there would have been no need for sacrifice. The remedy is a measure of the ailment.

Chili

The effect is to erase concience period. Confession is designed to erase bad conscience in the minds of the courageous that they may reach the end of their world and there be annihilated or maybe just rapture into oblivion on their own.

mountainman

I disagree. In the words of Apollonius (above)
reverberate a great truth. Whatever it is that
is deeply rooted in the human psyche does not
require more sacrifice.

I think that whatever is deeply rooted in the
human psyche somehow needs to be brought
into the light, and to be made pacific. Peace
is something one can never get enough of.


Sacrifice was accepted as "tradition".
The ancients were conditioned by the
behaviour of their parents and societies
to accept the practice of sacrife to those
greater powers which they did not understand.

Apollonius' writings represent a far more modern
paradigm, and one in which this conditioned
practice of sacrifice was obviated by a new
perspective on the practice, and its purpose.

Notably Eusebius quotes Apollonius as an
authority on the subject. This specific fact
needs to be understood by researchers
in this specific question.

spamandham

Slow down. The Bible is a collection of texts, heavily edited, redacted, interpolated, and syncretized over time to push whatever agenda each author was trying to push. There is no overriding theme, and most salient points it makes are contradicted by other parts. This is to be expected considering what it is.

So, does the Bible teach animal sacrifice? Yes. Does it condemn the practice? Yes. Does it condone human sacrifice? Yes. Does it condemn it? Yes.

Why does this pose a problem?

mountainman

We are told by Suetonius that the BCE Emperor Augusta
bribed his way to the role of Pontifex Maximus. What
precisely was this formalised role in the religious and
political power structure of the Roman Empire which
purportedly hosted the birth of Jesus Christ?

How did this role of Pontifex Maximus evolved from the time
of Augusta to the time of Julian, who also assumed this role.

This is a good research question in ancient history.
Any answers out there?