ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (11/02/85)
I wanted to see what Peter Reiher would have to say about the little piece on human sacrifice before I went on with it. Fortunately, that didn't take very long, the net being back together, and messages crossing the country in two or three days. >A minor point, I know, but I have never referred to myself as "Pete" in my >entire life, and invariably wince when someone else does. Call me sensitive, >but call me "Peter". Suggesting that I "might learn something for a change" >is a cheap shot. I have never suggested that you are either stupid or >slow to learn, merely wrong and a bit stubborn. For the record, I have >spent the last 11 years in college and will, with luck, receive a PhD in >about 9 months. I myself believe that I have spent most of that time >learning something, and Notre Dame and UCLA seem to agree. Remember, insults >are generally taken to be the last refuge of one whose arguments are destroyed. No problem. But you obviously aren't too familiar with the ins and outs of net.origins; a very thick skin seems to be required of regular posters, one way or another. Forgive me if I've picked up some of the habits of the group. I get called all sorts of things on net.origins; if it bothered me, you wouldn't be reading this. The neatest things I've been called lately is an INVERSE POLYMATH, not a particularly good thing to call anyone, since anyone to whom it actually applied would not know what it meant and would probably think he'd been complimented and smile. If I ever have to start looking these appellations up, I'll give up on net.origins. Before we go any further, I would like to explain one resource which Velikovsky, Cardona, and I all make use of, which is Louis Ginzberg's seven volumn "Legends of the Jews", copyright 1909 and available only from the Jewish Publication Society of America in Philadelphia. This massive work, first published in German, is the closest thing there is to any really large body of Midrashim translated into English. It picks up where the Old Testament leaves off, so to speak, and the title is somewhat misleading; it contains more history than mythology. Back to the dialogue: Holden: >> The consideration which makes these interpretations untenable arises >>from the most horrific of ancient practices, human sacrifice. >>In particular, the sacrifice of CHILDREN to made-up >>gods of the sort Campbell and Eliade describe would be so great a violation >>of the laws of nature that I, for one, even if I was totally unaware of >>Immanuel Velikovsky and of any other system of interpreting myths, would >>reject the proposition out of hand. Reiher: > Also, consider whose kids wound up being sacrificed. >do you think that the high priest's son went first, or might it have been >the child of a slave? Now, if one slave in a hundred lost a child every >year, do you think this would have led to a slave rebellion, or any other >major form of unrest? Alas, would that it were so. What is being described in Cardona's article, and throughout the OT, as well as in other folks mythology books, is, unfortunately, nothing less than Mr. Joe Middle-Class Israelite (and Phoenician, Ammonite etc. etc.) sacraficing one of his OWN 2.7 children BY FIRE, and then, as often as not, practicing ritualistic cannibalism upon the remains. The victim was usually the first-born, whether male or female. The OT mentions Kenaz only as the father of Othniel, the first judge, but Ginzberg's "Legends", Vol IV, page 22 describes a scene in which Kenaz presides as representatives of the different tribes confessed the sins of their tribes, in preparation for a war against the Canaanites. The representatives of Zebulon in particular replied: "we desired to eat the flesh of our sons and daughters, to know whether the Lord loves them." and the Ephraimites "owned to having sacraficed their children to Molech". Such, indeed, was the nature of the basic religion not only of the Israel- ites, but of all the peoples of the region; Moses and the prophets appear, upon close examination, to have been rebels, voices crying out in the wilderness against what actually constituted the common practices of the times. Consider Jeremiah's condemnation of the entire nation of Israel: Jeremiah 19:4-9 "Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place (the valley of Hinnom, or Gehinna), and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter..... And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I shall cause them to eat the flesh of their sons, and of their daughters......... At a later date, of course, Gehinna became the Jewish word for hell. There must have come a time, in fact, about three or four generations after the solar system settled down (and if you read the abstract to Robert Bass' paper, you noticed that this settling wouldn't have taken more than a few decades), when men finally ceased to understand the religion of their grandfathers and their great-grandfathers. All this talk about gods (planets) and other dangerous apparitions in the heavens: "what the hell are these old geezers talking about? I don't see anything threatening in the sky." At this time also, the history of human sacrafice to those elder gods, which were now nowhere in evidence, other than as tiny points of light in the heavens, must have become an acute em- barassment. Thus you won't find the stories about ritualistic cannibalism splashed all over the OT; But as you can see, traces of it are still there. As you might have guessed, for ritualistic cannibalism to have been part of these rituals, a little bit more than fear must have been involved. Consider Hesiods's "Theogeny" and the story about Kronos (Saturn) eating his own and Rhea's offspring as they were born. Another fairy-tale? We Velikovskians don't think so. You've read the story of Venus fissioning off from Jupiter in Worlds in Collision (the myth of Aphrodite, Venus, being born from the head of Zeus). There appears to have been more than one instance of this happening. The story in Theogeny appears to indicate that several smaller bodies, at one time, were blasted off of Jupiter or one of the other large planets, and absorbed by Saturn. Thus, the story in Theogeny represents an interpretation of events actually witnessed by men, and the ritualistic cannibalism in the rites of Moloch appears to be immitative. Holden: >> Protection of one's children is the most absolute law of nature, in >>fact, the only principle which naturally and normally comes before self- >>preservation. Almost all higher animals will literally throw their own >>lives away protecting their offspring. Reiher: >The interesting thing about mankind, of course, is that we are substantially >less compelled to follow our instincts than many other animals. Lots of >things other animals instinctively avoid we choose to do. Why not also >sacrificing children? Get serious. I can believe some of these other posters on net.origins challenging me on obvious points (e.g. Stanley Friesen or Michael McNeil: "Why, I smear bullshit all over myself and go out after elephants with my spear every weekend"), but you're too intelligent for this. >Here's a real goody. I'm surprised that Mr. Holden left it in, it's so >stupid. > >> "Moreover, thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast >> borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them [the foreign >> gods] to be devoured."(16) >> >> We notice here the introduction of a new element. If the children >>were sacrificed "to be devoured", it could only mean that the Molochian >>sacrifices included ritualistic cannibalism. > >How many of you really believe this? How about the alternate explanation >that the god supposedly "ate" the sacrifices by consuming the smoke that >resulted from burning them? Since we have explicit evidence that the >ancient Greeks believed precisely that, and no more clear evidence that >the ancient peoples of Palestine actually ate the human sacrifices, I >again remain unconvinced. (Considering how eager the Israelites were to >libel their neighbors, I'm sure that they would have gone on for verses >about the perversity of eating one's children if it actually happened.) I think I've just covered this one. But if you want any more evidence, just say so. I've got it. >> What about it, Carnes and Reiher? You two have all the neat answers >>for questions concerning mythology. Let's hear your neat answer for this >>one. Want a few hints? "Moloch" wasn't really a name so much as a title, >>signifying "king", or "ruler". In this context, it meant Saturn. > >Says who? Prove it. Lots of gods have names similar to "king". Usually, >it means that they were regarded as the head of their pantheon. Sounds >logical to me. Why isn't it, Mr. Holden? And, other than the fact that >Velikovsky and his disciples say so, where is your evidence that > > Moloch = Saturn ? Of course, the two ancients gods referred to as "king of heaven" in Greek and Roman mythology were Saturn and Jupiter (Kronos and Zeus). This was assumed as common knowledge by the authors of the OT, who were laconic in their writings normally, and is rarely explicitely stated. However, if you dig hard enough, and Cardona and a few of the regular posters in Kronos (the journal) have, you can find one or two such explicit statements regarding Saturn = Molech in the OT. Consider Amos 6:26-27 "But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Molech and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. Therefore, I will cause you to go into captivity....." Chiun, Kaiun, Kewan, these are Roman alphabet renderings for a name which was essentially the same in Assyrian, Babylonian, and Hebrew: the name of the planet Saturn. Cardona cites Martin Seiff's paper "Planets in the Bible: I - The Chronology of Job", SISR I:4 Spring 1977 as a primary reference, and I would think that other references to this could be found without too much digging. Some sources will spell the name "Khivan", but that's about as much variation as you'll find. >>Likewise, all variations of the name El or Elus were appellations for >>Saturn. Isra-EL meant literally, "long live Saturn", and all other Hebrew >>names ending in EL had similar meanings. > >Got any proof for this one, either? I do not know any Hebrew, but I'm sure >that there are those out there who do. What, if anything, is the Hebrew >word for the planet Saturn? "Chiun", or "Khivan", as I've stated. For a non-Velikovskian (and hence, "untainted") version of the equation El = Kronos, see Samuel Noah Kramer's "Mythologies of the Ancient World", page 160. Velikovsky rendered "Isra-el" as "may El preserve", literally, and I am assuming this would translate common-usage-wise into something like "long live El", although I, too, would appreciate hearing from some Hebrew language scholar on the net regarding this one. One thing, however; whatever else anyone may challenge Velikovsky on, don't try to challenge him on knowledge of Hebrew, the reasons being obvious. >>Readers interested in >>learning more about what the archaic world was actually like ... >>are advised to send a check for $15 to: >Unless you have a tremendous interest in supporting pseudo-science, I'd >advise against it. The National Enquirer is probably about on a par for >veracity. It turns out, this was the only part of my article which was slightly in error; subscriptions have lately gone up to $20. Nonetheless, I still regard it as a bargain. The address again: Kronos Subscription Dept. P.O. Box 343 Wynnewood, Pa. 19096
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (11/06/85)
> As you might have guessed, for ritualistic cannibalism to have been part > of these rituals, a little bit more than fear must have been involved. Consider > Hesiods's "Theogeny" and the story about Kronos (Saturn) eating his own > and Rhea's offspring as they were born. Another fairy-tale? We Velikovskians > don't think so. You've read the story of Venus fissioning off from Jupiter in > Worlds in Collision (the myth of Aphrodite, Venus, being born from the head of > Zeus). There appears to have been more than one instance of this happening. > The story in Theogeny appears to indicate that several smaller bodies, at one > time, were blasted off of Jupiter or one of the other large planets, and > absorbed by Saturn. Thus, the story in Theogeny represents an interpretation > of events actually witnessed by men, and the ritualistic cannibalism in the > rites of Moloch appears to be immitative. Sorry, Ted. If memory serves, it was Athena, not Aphrodite who "sprang full-grown from the head of Zeus". And since there is no equivalent to Rhea in the heavens, why is "Kronos" eating someone elses' children? SJBerry
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (11/06/85)
I have two questions about the proposition that human sacrifice in
ancient times implies "cosmic catastrophe".
1) Why is "human sacrifice" (in several forms, but primarily
infanticide as a simple form of retroactive birth control) still
common today?
2) Why was human sacrifice the response to cosmic catastrophe?
The first question is the obvious outcome of the observation that Ted's
"universal law" of parental love is broken daily, in many animal
species, and in the among humans as well. Was this "universal law"
more universal in the past than we observe it now, and if so, why?
The second question is the obvious outcome of the assumption that these
human sacrifices would have had *no* *effect* *whatever* on the cosmic
events they were purported to influence. What maintained the
co-religionist's sacrificial fervor when the sacrifices proved
fruitless? Similarly, what process selected for these practices in the
first place?
Note that I'm *not* claiming that humans don't do things that are
fairly thoroughly demonstrated to have no benefit... most papers have
horiscopes after all. I'm just wondering what is the connection between
cosmic catastrophe and human sacrifice such that the former leads to the
latter, rather than, say, fervent prayer (which, come to think of it,
might even be more effective than sacrifice).
It seems to me, in light of these problems, that the proposition just
doesn't make much sense.
--
MICHAELMAS: "You don't think my theory holds water?"
DOMINO: "A bathtub will hold water. A canteen is usually sufficent."
--- from "MICHAELMAS" by Algis Budrys
--
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopwreiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (11/07/85)
[Apologies for the length of this article. Those who are convinced that
Mr. Holden's opinions on human sacrifice are incorrect and have no further
interest in the subject might wish to skip this article.]
I would like to examine Mr. Holden's claims about human sacrifice in some
details. First, let's review his basic argument. As Mr. Holden has earlier
stated that he looks with disdain on postings which consist of quotes and
rebuttals, I will paraphrase his argument. If I have done so incorrectly,
I'm sure Mr. Holden will be kind enough to correct me.
The argument, I believe, goes as follows.
1). At some point in the distant past, human sacrifice, and, particularly,
child sacrifice, was common in the area of Palestine. The usual form of
sacrifice was the firstborn child of a family. The children in question
were willingly offered by their own parents. This rite was frequently
performed both by the Israelites and their neighbors, the Canaanites, and,
for that matter, by all of the ancient peoples of the area.
2). At some later point, this practice fell into disuse.
3). Nothing but a clear and present danger would convince parents to sacrifice
their own children.
4). The only danger great enough to cause this phenomenon would be planets
flying past the earth, discharging comets at various points, and generally
causing a highly traumatic (to understate it) change in the nature of life
on Earth. Possibly, the mere presence of Saturn looming directly overhead
would be enough.
5). Considering points 1-4, the explanation for the origin and downfall of
the custom of child sacrifice in the ancient Near East is that the custom
arose either because of the presence of Saturn in the sky or because of
the catastrophic events described by Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision".
The natural reason was to propitiate supposed angry gods. After the solar
system calmed down, the need for such drastic sacrifices disappeared, so
parents no longer offered their children as sacrifices to the gods.
As can be seen above, Mr. Holden has not made clear to me whether or not
only the actual catastrophes brought on the disasters or whether the mere
presence of Saturn looming huge in the skies was sufficient. I do not
regard this as a point of particular importance, and am willing to accept
either of Mr. Holden's arguments on this point as equally valid (or invalid).
Mr. Holden also introduced an element of cannibalism, suggesting that eating
of the child sacrifice was a common occurence in the Canaanite/Israelite
human sacrificial ceremonies. Mr. Holden argues that this is further evidence
in favor of the necessity of a vast calamity to explain these sacrifices,
as only the most pressing danger would force parents into eating their own
children. I will treat this point separately, in a separate article.
Firstly, the occurence and frequency of child sacrifice in this area is not
a matter of universal agreement among scholars of the period. In particular,
the extent to which the Israelites engaged in the practice is disputed. The
evidence in favor of the proposition is that their are several Biblical
references to the practice, and injunctions that the Israelites abjure it.
Mr. Holden has quoted these in detail. Also, Mr. Holden has sited a
source of Jewish legends which upholds this view. The only written material
from non-Israelite tribes from this period and area is from the Canaanites.
As best I can determine, these do not mention the subject of child sacrifice.
Later writers frequently attribute child sacrifice to the peoples of this area.
On the whole, I am convinced that the peoples of the Ancient Near East
made a practice of child sacrifice. The frequency of it is unclear.
Generally, the sacrifice seems to have been the firstborn male child,
sometimes the firstborn regardless of sex. In the best documented cases,
there is some clear cause for the sacrifice, most frequently the need for
the god to intercede in war for his people. In these cases, the child of
the king is most often sacrificed, with other children sometimes included in
the festivities.
Moving on to point 2, obviously, at some point the Israelites and their
neighbors stopped practicing this nasty habit. It is worth mentioning,
however, that many other ancient or primitive peoples did not stop their
use of this practice until much later. For instance,
"...the Carthaginian sacrifice of 200 children, when the city was in the
last stage of seige." (A. E. Crawles, "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethos",
vol VI, p 842.) "Man, Myth, and Magic" (vol 8, p 2184) states that the
Carthaginians kept this practice up until 146BC, not coincidentally the
date after which the Romans assured that the world heard no more from
Carthage. In the huge sacrifice mentioned above, Crawles states that,
up to this point, the Carthaginians had fallen into the lax habit of
buying slave children to sacrifice, rather than chipping in with their
own. The imminent danger of the fall of the city convinced them that
the gods were displeased with this fakery, so 200 of their own children
marched off to the slaughter.
However, we need not go nearly so far back in history to find examples
of child sacrifice carried on on a regular basis. For instance,
"In the Luritcha tribe of central Australia, 'young children are sometimes
killed and eaten...'" (Fraser, in "The Golden Bough", quoting Spencer and
Giller in "Native Tribes of Central Australia", p425).
And,
"The natives of Rook, an island off the east coast of New Guinea, used to
kill all their firstborn children; ... They spared the second child, but
killed the third, and so on alternately with the rest of the offspring."
(Fraser, vol VI, pp 180.)
And,
"In India, down to the beginnings of the 19th century, the custom of
sacrificing a firstborn child to the Ganges was common." (ibid, p 180-181.)
Fraser also mentions practices of child sacrifice among the Borans, Kerre,
Banna, and Bashada of south Abyssinia; Ugandan tribes; the Senjero of
East Africa; the Kutomagal Indians of British Columbia; the Coast Salish
Indians; the Indians of Florida; the Indians of Peru; and a pair of Amazonian
tribes, the Ximanas and the Cauxanas. These are only the cases known in
historical times, and do not count many others which died out earlier.
(ibid, pp 180-186.)
What does this prove? That, while the Israelites and their neighbors may
have stopped sacrificing their children around the supposed time of the
Velikovskian catastrophes, many other peoples went on doing so for a
considerably longer period of time. This point will be used more explicitly
later.
As far as point three goes, that naught but a clear and present danger would
cause parents to sacrifice their children, well... depends on what you define
to be a clear and present danger.
"Certain cases of child sacrifice seem to suggest that the child, being in
a sense a duplicate of the father, places the life of the father in danger."
(Crawles, "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethos", vol VI, p 842)
"There is a curious practice ... of sacrificing an individual, generally a
child, to remove barrenness from women." (ibid, p 843)
And, in the Luritcha tribe mentioned earlier,
"...it is not an infrequent custom, when a child is in weak health, to
kill a younger and healthier one and then feed the weakling on its flesh,
the idea being that this will give the weak child the strength of the
stronger one." (Spencer and Giller, p 425)
"When unseasonable weather threatened the crops, the Peruvians sacrificed
children." (A. de Herrera "Gen. History", ii, 111)
And, in a good general description of the types and purposes of human
sacrifice, Crawles says
"In a true human sacrifice, the victim may be a). a young infant, the
firstborn of the family, b). a criminal or prisoner of war, or c). a
person of special importance in the eyes of the person or tribe offering
the sacrifice. In the first case, we have, in the majority of instances,
a sacrifice of primitae, whereby the first fruits of the field, of domestic
animals, and of the human family were sacrificed to the deity... The third
case is rather different; the god has to be appeased by his own people; a
calamity or plague has to be averted, or some prize as victory in battle
has to be obtained; the most valuable gift the tribe can offer has, therefore,
tob e presented in payment for the boon; the king's eldest son must be
offered as burnt-offering that there may be 'great wrath' against the enemy".
(Crawles, p 842)
Thus, we see that there are many, many reasons to sacrifice one of one's
own children. Crashing planets aren't necessary. A little glory in war
(remember Agammemnon?), bad crops, pestilence, plague, or a vague sense of
uneasiness in the father may all cause child sacrifices. Thus, unless Mr.
Holden can present some evidence that the sacrifices of the ancient peoples of
Palestine were particularly numerous, I see no reason we must invoke
Velikovskian catastrophes to account for them. Even if he could, he would first
have to demonstrate that no lesser event caused such an excess of religious
fervour. Everyday, old fashioned Earth-style calamities, some of them
man-made, will explain matters quite satisfactorially.
Therefore, I have shown that, while the peoples in question did perform
child sacrifices, it is completely unnecessary to suggest troubles in
the heavens to explain those sacrifices. Moreover, if, as Mr. Holden
suggests, planetary catastrophes are the only plausible explanations for
mass child sacrifices, how does he explain the many other peoples of the
world who willingly slaughtered their children up into the 19th century
AD? In particular, we know that the Carthaginians, who used almost exactly
the same religious forms as the Semitic peoples of the Near East, went on
sacrificing their own children literally up to the point when their city
was destroyed.
In a subsequent article, I will deal with the issue of cannibalism. The
approach will be the same, a demonstration that many peoples eat their
own children for reasons much less drastic than near-misses by planets
and comets. Those who need no further convincing may safely skip that
article.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher