ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (10/27/85)
The following is from Richard Carnes latest posting: >In article <7112@ucla-cs.ARPA> reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) writes: >> Only the fact that the net >>is richer in experts in the physical sciences rather than myth and history >>has prevented Velikovsky from being raked over those coals, as well. I would >>suggest that Mr. Holden keep quiet about this, or a true expert on ancient >>cultures may get incensed enough to totally destroy this position, as well. >Some of us who are knowledgeable about ancient cultures have more >interesting things to do than to respond to Holden's postings, which >is about as productive as arguing with someone who claims to be >Jesus...... >There is no reason to respond to his writings about mythology because >he has not presented one single argument against accepted >interpretations of mythology, and indeed he appears unaware that >there are any non-Velikovskian theories of myth. >Anyone who wishes to learn about mythology might start with something >by Joseph Campbell..... Now, in reality, I not only am familiar with all of the yuppie versions of mythological interpretation (Campbell, Eliade et. al.) which Carnes believes in, but I am also familiar with the reasons for REJECTING them, which Carnes obviously isn't. Stick around, Pete and Richard; you two might actually learn something for a change. These yuppie versions of interpretation generally proceed along what I would call "uniformitarian" lines. The authors specifically deny any possibility of catastrophe myths being true in any literal sense e.g. Campbell, in "The Masks of God": "It is of course possible that in each little city state itself the local flood was interpreted as a cosmic event...." These authors would have us believe that Dyaus Pitar (Jupiter) was simply the sky itself, even as we see it, and that, similarly, other gods represented common every-day things such as the sun, the wind, the Earth itself (the Earth Mother, Erda etc.) and, I should point out particularly, that none of the things which these deities represented has ever posed any colossal or unbelievable threat to this entire planet within the last 10000 years, say. The consideration which makes these interpretations untenable arises from the most horrific of ancient practices, human sacrifice. H.L. Mencken best stated the utter incredulity with which modern man views these ancient practices in a little essay called "Graveyard of the Gods" which, if I remember correctly, may be found in "Prejudices". Speaking particularly of the Ammonite god Moloch and of one or two of the Aztec gods, he asserts that at the heights of their powers, tens of thousands of innocents were sacrificed to these deities YEARLY and, yet, where are they now? Hell of a question, isn't it? 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. 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. As a general rule, there simply could be no threat to peoples own lives sufficiently great to cause them to sacrifice their own children. For children to be sacrificed willingly by their own parents to ANYTHING, that anything must be something which threatens the entire planet, something such as Velikovsky claimed Saturn, Jupiter, and Venus once were. Such a practice would only be possible amongst people who lived in perpetual fear of the entire planet being annihilated by forces utterly beyond their control. Children would never be sacrificed by their own parents to the wind (from which shelters could be built), to a volcano which could be moved away from, to the sky (which hardly ever KILLS anybody), or to any of the kinds of gods described by Eliade or Campbell. A priest calling for such sacrifices to made-up gods would himself be killed and sooner than he'd expect. What follows are excerpts from an article titled "THE RITES OF MOLOCH", posted in the summer 84 issue of the Kronos Journal, by Dwardu Cardona, one of the senior editors of Kronos. ................................................................... ................................................................... THE RITES OF MOLOCH by Dwardu Cardona I Prior to their entry into Canaan, the Israelites were admonished by Moses not to fall prey to the rites of the Ammonite god known as Moloch (also rendered Molech, Milc(h)om, and/or Malcham). These rites involved the offering of children as burnt sacrifices to the god. Moses warned: "...thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech..."(1) That Molech was a powerful god to be reckoned with is evidenced by a lengthy passage in the book of Leviticus which has God himself speaking the following words to Moses: "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. "And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. "And if the people of the land do anyways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: "Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people."(2) Again, in the book of Deuteronomy, when god, through Moses, admonishes the Israelites not to "enquire" after the gods of the people they were about to dispossess, he tells them: "...for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."(3) Later, the admonition is repeated yet one more time: "When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire..."(4) Would such a cruel rite - in which fathers and mothers were asked to watch their very own children roast in a fire before a material idol - have appeared that seductive to a wandering people striving for nationhood that these admonitions had to be repeated time and again? Need parents have been warned against Molech? II The Ammonites, a settled, civilized, and sophisticated people, were no more monstrous than the infiltrating Israelites. Yet, so it seems, they had been sacrificing their own beloved children to Moloch from ages past. Moses' fear was therefore a very real one. Whatever there was in the cruel cult of Moloch that had held the Ammonites bound to it was capable of seducing the Israelites and converting them to its faith. And so it happened. The admonitions of Yahweh, spoken through Moses, proved to be in vain. By the time of the Judges, when Israel was made to confess its collective sins, the tribe of Ephraim admitted to having sacrificed its children to Moloch.(5) Nor did it stop there. In later years, Solomon himself actually built a shrine to this god. "Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of Ammon."(6) And so it went on. Even later, Ahaz, king of Judah in the days of the divided monarchy, sacrificed his own son - and he did so in keeping with the custom of the kings of Israel. "But he [Ahaz] walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen..."(7) Some authorities believe that this son was Hezekiah, the later king of Judah, who somehow survived the fire. "King Hezekiah owes his life to the salamander. His wicked father, King Ahaz, had delivered him to the fires of Moloch, and he would have burnt, had his mother not painted him with the blood of the salamander, so that the fire could do him no harm."(8) The Tosefta Targum, however, is more theological in its explanation. According to this work, Hezekiah was saved from the fire by the will of God through the merits, whatever they would prove to be, of his descendants.(9) How Hezekiah managed to survive Moloch's fire is a question that is difficult to answer but it is quite possible that Hezekiah was not the sacrificial son and that later apologists, confused with the train of historical events, sought to explain Hezekiah's continued existence by a magical, or miraculous, intervention. Manasseh, king of Jerusalem, also sacrificed his son. No miracle intervened to save him. "And he [Manasseh] built alters for all the hosts of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord [i.e., the Yahwist temple]. "And he made his son to pass through the fire..."(10) Thus we know that Philo Byblius was telling the truth when he attributed such customs to the rulers of Canaan.(11) III This state of affairs continued throughout the ministries of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. "Against whom do ye sport yourselves? [asked Isaiah].. Inflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks?"(12) So, similarly, Jeremiah: "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire.."(13) At this point, we may note that similar rites were also connected with Baal: "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal..."(14) In fact, it seems that Baal and Moloch were different names for the same god. This is attested to by Jeremiah's following words: "And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech."(15) Thus, the abominations carried on in the name of Moloch can be extended by the inclusion of those carried on in homage to Baal. IV These instances - and there are many others recorded throughout the Old Testament - do not reflect the odd lapse of some individuals who strayed from the Yahwist path. What is being reviewed here is, in essence, the passion of an entire nation, together with its kings, for a ritualistic faith that asked of its adherents nothing less than the sacrificial slaughter of their own children. Time and again, through the mouth of his prophets, the national god of Israel was led to rail against his own people. "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. What power on earth, we must ask again, could have induced the parents of such an otherwise sophisticated people to slaughter, burn, and devour their own children? Cardona's References up to this point were: 1. Leviticus 18:21 2. Ibid 20:2 - 5 3. Deuteronomy 12:31 4. Ibid 18:9 - 10 5. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews(Phil.,5728/1968),Vol IV pg 23 6. I Kings 11:7 7. II Kings 16:3 8. L. Ginzberg, op. cit. Vol. I, P. 33; Vol IV p. 266 9. Ibid p. 361 10. II Kings 21:5 - 6 11. Eusebius Pamphili, Evangelicae Praeparationis, 1:10:29. 12. Isaiah 57:4-5 13. Jeremiah 7:31 14. Ibid 19:5 15. Ezekial 16:20 ........................................................................ ........................................................................ 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. 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. Cardona's article was a long one, about 30 pages; I couldn't repro- duce it entirely in one article traveling via UUCP. Readers interested in learning more about what the archaic world was actually like (and this kind of knowledge WON'T be found in books by Campbell or Eliade) are advised to send a check for $15 to: Kronos, Subscription Dept. P.O. Box 343 Wynnewood, Pa. 19096
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/29/85)
In article <445@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > Now, in reality, I not only am familiar with all of the yuppie >versions of mythological interpretation (Campbell, Eliade et. al.) which >Carnes believes in, but I am also familiar with the reasons for REJECTING >them, which Carnes obviously isn't. Stick around, Pete and Richard; you >two might actually learn something for a change. 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. Now, enough oversensitive complaints, and on to the meat of the matter. As far as calling various planets by names of gods, yes, I'd say that is of ancient origin. Mr. Holden seems unaware, however, of the evolution of the gods of ancient Greece. Zeus/Jupiter is not terribly old, relatively speaking. Venus/Aphrodite, a fertility god of tremendous importance to early farmers, is believed to be much older. Hence, no surprise that she got first shot at a planet. > 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. Mr. Holden is guilty of extremely uniformitarian thinking here. He assumes that all cultures regard their children as we regard ours. It is a matter of historical record that many Chinese treated their female children with considerably less tenderness than we do, and other groups of people still do. When children died, on a regular basis, while still very young, they became much less important to their parents. Even in comparatively recent times, this was so. 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? > 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. 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? >For children to be sacrificed willingly by >their own parents to ANYTHING, that anything must be something which >threatens the entire planet, something such as Velikovsky claimed Saturn, >Jupiter, and Venus once were. Such a practice would only be possible >amongst people who lived in perpetual fear of the entire planet being >annihilated by forces utterly beyond their control. This is another example of proof by "I can't think of any other reason". Just because *you* don't see any other explanation doesn't mean that there isn't one. Particularly when intelligent, educated people claim to have one, and have evidence to back up their claims. Mr. Holden then quotes an article from "Kronos", a journal devoted solely to Velikovskian articles. This article, at some length, gives convincing demonstrations that the people in Palestine before the arrival of the Israelites practiced child sacrifice. I don't think anyone argues that point. Then, taking a vast, unsupported leap, the article suggests that nothing other than the clear and present danger of comets whizzing around striking the Earth could have caused these peoples to follow this custom. The method is clear. Provide ample references to what no one argues, in the hopes that some readers will assume that you have references for the more controversial arguments. I remain unconvinced. 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.) > 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 ? >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? >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. -- Peter Reiher reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher