Infant sacrifice

[SkepticBoyLee]

It has been claimed that the story of Abraham introduced the idea that sacrificing babies was immoral. Is there any source one can show me where the idea that baby sacrifice is immoral is layed out that predates the story of Abraham?

[moonwatcher]

I dont know anything about the history of infant sacrifice but, in my opinion the idea that the story of Abraham being an instance of condemnation of infant sacrifice is implausible.

After all, God praises Abraham precisely for his WILLINGNESS to sacrifice his son. The fact that he doesnt make it carry it out doesnt change that fact.

Besides, in the story, Abraham's son, Isaac, was not an infant.

[Magdlyn]

Where is the evidence that child sacrifice was even practiced in the Middle East? All those refs to "passing them through fire" sounds like they could've been passed between 2 fires or over a fire and not killed. Merely purified by a fire worshiping culture.

Jack be nimble
Jack be quick
Jack jump over the candlestick

is a description of a Beltane ritual. Bel=Baal.

There is massive evidence in Genesis that the Hebrewa believed Yahweh lived in fire, ei: a volcano, or the fire that led them in the wilderness. No evidence that children were actually ritually killed in a fire.

[SkepticBoyLee]

Thanks. All I need is an ancient criticism that is critical of infant/baby/child/or even human sacrifice as the claim here is that the Abrahamic religions introduced this new, groundbreaking "morality".

[Mesa Mike]

From Duet. 12:31You 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.

This, though, doesn't "introduce ... new, groundbreaking morality." It seems to imply that the morality in question is already well understood.

The Bible does condemn the shedding of innocent blood in many places. Infants are certainly among the innocent. No specific rule regarding infants need be given.

[moonwatcher]

It has been claimed that the story of Abraham introduced the idea that sacrificing babies was immoral. Is there any source one can show me where the idea that baby sacrifice is immoral is layed out that predates the story of Abraham?


According to the wikipedia article on human sacrifice:

In the ancient Near East, human sacrifice was suppressed throughout the Persian Empire, partly as a consequence of the spread of Zoroastrianism, which taught that human sacrifice was a sign of Ahriman, not of the Wise Lord Ahura Mazda.

[douglas]

Where is the evidence that child sacrifice was even practiced in the Middle East?

I had always taken it as a given that child sacrifice was practiced by the phoenicians, but this article seems to show there's some disagreement about this...

http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html

Regardless, it doesn't seem like the practice was nearly as wide spread as I had believed it to be. I agree that we're giving the early Hebrews too much credit to say the Abraham sacrifice story is a "morality" lesson. There is NO WAY that they could have been the first culture to say that killing your children to appease the God's is a bad thing. To me, it's more of a "lets make fun of those other religions" kind of cliff-hanger story.

[lpetrich]

Or it's a way of justifying avoiding such a sacrifice.

There is something similar in the story of Prometheus and Zeus on animal sacrifice, in which Prometheus got Zeus to accept offerings of the icky parts instead of the tasty parts.

[triffidfood]

From Duet. 12:31

This, though, doesn't "introduce ... new, groundbreaking morality." It seems to imply that the morality in question is already well understood.

The Bible does condemn the shedding of innocent blood in many places. Infants are certainly among the innocent. No specific rule regarding infants need be given.
What about all the infants amongst the various cities "devoted to destruction" by the Israelites? They weren't "innocent" because they belonged to neighbouring, conmpeting tribes I guess?

"Devoted to destruction" apparently means sacrificed (the original Hebrew word that gets translated to this phrase is the same that's used elsewhere in the OT in other, sacrificial contexts, such as animals burnt or otherwise sacrificed in the Temple).

The deal was, God delivered the Israelites victory in their various show downs with other (inferior presumably) Canaanite tribes, in return for the sacrifice (devoting to destruction) of the inhabitants of the cities they defeated. Men, women, children, the elderly, the unborn, livestock, whatever, they all got slaughtered (in front of each other, presumably) as a bloody pay-off for divinely assisted military conquest.

Lovely example to set..

[Mesa Mike]

What about all the infants amongst the various cities "devoted to destruction" by the Israelites? They weren't "innocent" because they belonged to neighbouring, conmpeting tribes I guess?

The Canaanites and Amorites were just a lovely, innocent bunch of people minding their own business, eh?

This issue has been much discussed. Google is your friend. OK, that sounds like a cop-out, but I haven't the time to make any case here.

[John Kesler]

The Canaanites and Amorites were just a lovely, innocent bunch of people minding their own business, eh?

What does it say about the alleged omniscience and wisdom of Yahweh for him to order the extermination of the Canaanites, only to replace them with a people who, by the Bible's own account, were just as wicked?


2 Kings 17 (http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/2KI/2KI17.HTM):
...the people of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They had worshiped other gods 8 and walked in the customs of the nations whom the LORD drove out before the people of Israel, and in the customs that the kings of Israel had introduced. 9 The people of Israel secretly did things that were not right against the LORD their God. They built for themselves high places at all their towns, from watchtower to fortified city; 10 they set up for themselves pillars and sacred poles on every high hill and under every green tree; 11 there they made offerings on all the high places, as the nations did whom the LORD carried away before them. They did wicked things, provoking the LORD to anger; 12 they served idols, of which the LORD had said to them, "You shall not do this." 13 Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, "Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets." 14 They would not listen but were stubborn, as their ancestors had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God. 15 They despised his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their ancestors, and the warnings that he gave them. They went after false idols and became false; they followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom the LORD had commanded them that they should not do as they did. 16 They rejected all the commandments of the LORD their God and made for themselves cast images of two calves; they made a sacred pole, worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. 17 They made their sons and their daughters pass through fire; they used divination and augury; and they sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger.

Deuteronomy 9 (http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/BIBLE/DEU/DEU9.HTM):
6 Know, then, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to occupy because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn people. 7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness; you have been rebellious against the LORD from the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place.
8 Even at Horeb you provoked the LORD to wrath, and the LORD was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you. 9 When I went up the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. 10 And the LORD gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God; on them were all the words that the LORD had spoken to you at the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly. 11 At the end of forty days and forty nights the LORD gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant. 12 Then the LORD said to me, "Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves." 13 Furthermore the LORD said to me, "I have seen that this people is indeed a stubborn people. 14 Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they."
15 So I turned and went down from the mountain, while the mountain was ablaze; the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands. 16 Then I saw that you had indeed sinned against the LORD your God, by casting for yourselves an image of a calf; you had been quick to turn from the way that the LORD had commanded you. 17 So I took hold of the two tablets and flung them from my two hands, smashing them before your eyes. 18 Then I lay prostrate before the LORD as before, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all the sin you had committed, provoking the LORD by doing what was evil in his sight. 19 For I was afraid that the anger that the LORD bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you. But the LORD listened to me that time also. 20 The LORD was so angry with Aaron that he was ready to destroy him, but I interceded also on behalf of Aaron at that same time. 21 Then I took the sinful thing you had made, the calf, and burned it with fire and crushed it, grinding it thoroughly, until it was reduced to dust; and I threw the dust of it into the stream that runs down the mountain.
22 At Taberah also, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah, you provoked the LORD to wrath. 23 And when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying, "Go up and occupy the land that I have given you," you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God, neither trusting him nor obeying him. 24 You have been rebellious against the LORD as long as he has known you.

[Gawen]

The Canaanites and Amorites were just a lovely, innocent bunch of people minding their own business, eh? So were God's chosen:
Exodus 13:2
the Lord said "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me."

Leviticus 27:28-29:
"Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death."

Judges 11:29-40 Jephthah Burns His Daughter (although she is most likely not a child, she is a virgin)

1 Kings 13:1-2 Josiah executes the pagan priests on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. (Not children, but pagans)

Wisdom 3:5-7
"Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself. In the time of their visitation they shall shine, and shall dart about as sparks through stubble;..."

Wisdom 14:21-23 This passage condemns human sacrifice but acknowledges that it did happen by early God worshipers.



There's a great deal more of God's loving explained in the bible.

[lpetrich]

The Canaanites and Amorites were just a lovely, innocent bunch of people minding their own business, eh?
But what did they ever do to deserve some "Final Solution of the Canaanite Question," as it might be called?

Yes, what Deuteronomy 7 commands for the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites can only be called genocide.

[Jack the Bodiless]

As Gawen pointed out, the Hebrews formerly sacrificed their own children to YHWH. And, lest there be any doubt about this, Ezekiel confirms that it happened:
I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.

[Mesa Mike]

But what did they ever do to deserve some "Final Solution of the Canaanite Question," as it might be called?

These people were exceedingly wicked, even by ancient near east standards.
Google is your friend.

[Mesa Mike]

So were God's chosen:

What version of the Bible do you quote from?
It seems to be quite different than any I've seen before.

But at any rate, none of the verses you've quoted indicate that God has commanded ritualistic human sacrifice.

[Mesa Mike]

As Gawen pointed out, the Hebrews formerly sacrificed their own children to YHWH. And, lest there be any doubt about this, Ezekiel confirms that it happened:

Certainly the Hebrews at times fell away into paganism, even sacrificing their children. But God did not commnd them to do so, nor did they sacrifice their children to Him (YHWH), but to the pagan idols.

Ez. 20:23-26 (The Message)
'But I did lift my hand in solemn oath there in the desert, and swore that I would scatter them all over the world, disperse them every which way because they didn't keep my laws nor live by my statutes. They desecrated my Sabbaths and remained addicted to the no-god idols of their parents. Since they were determined to live bad lives, I myself gave them statutes that could not produce goodness and laws that did not produce life. I abandoned them. Filthy in the gutter, they perversely sacrificed their firstborn children in the fire. The very horror should have shocked them into recognizing that I am God.'

[JEST2ASK]

What version of the Bible do you quote from?
It seems to be quite different than any I've seen before.

But at any rate, none of the verses you've quoted indicate that God has commanded ritualistic human sacrifice.

What do you think happened to all those set aside in terms of spoils / captives etc ... for example King Agag, 1 - Samuel 15:32-33 what do your resources say ...
what is your take on Jephthah's sacrifice Judges 11: 34-39*, in particular how his god and the people regarded it ....

[John Kesler]

What version of the Bible do you quote from?
It seems to be quite different than any I've seen before.

Gawen quoted from the New American Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/). As you seem so fond of telling others, "Google is your friend." (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-39,GGLG:en&q=%22%22Note+also+that+any+one+of+his+possessions+which+a+man%22) :)

[Jack the Bodiless]

These people were exceedingly wicked, even by ancient near east standards.
Google is your friend.
What do you imagine Google will tell us, other than "a whole bunch of Christians with web pages think that these people were exceedingly wicked"?
But at any rate, none of the verses you've quoted indicate that God has commanded ritualistic human sacrifice.
Exodus 13:2 and Leviticus 27:28-29 indicate that God commanded the dedication of every firstborn child to him, and that those so dedicated were to be put to death.

Of course, there's also the sacrifice of the 32 virgins in Numbers 31 (unless you're suggesting that Moses was acting without God's authority), but at least they weren't infants (presumably).

[moonwatcher]

These people were exceedingly wicked, even by ancient near east standards.
Google is your friend.

So genocide is fine.....so long as you only commit it against the wicked?

Because they were wicked and slaughtered their own infants to their gods its OK to slaughter them, INCLUDING THEIR INFANTS, down to the last one?

A strange logic.

Christians like to claim atheism leads to moral relativism. Yet I so frequently hear christians defending genocide and the slaughter of infants. Strangely enough, despite the so-called lack of basis for morality in atheism I never hear atheists defending such things. Just the opposite.

[JEST2ASK]

These people were exceedingly wicked, even by ancient near east standards.
Google is your friend.

Several somewhat related questions ....

Who according to the bible survived the great flood ...
How were false god's and false worship introduced , please site scriptural references ...

Do you think that the colonization of the " New World" was divine judgement against the wicked people's of those lands ???

[Roller]

Perhaps its worth noting that some scholars consider the possiblity that Abraham really sacrificed Isaac in the "original" story.

I'm not sure how to interpret this, but the story ends by saying: "Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba."

This seems like "Two men enter, one man leaves". Notice that its said "Abraham returned", not "Abraham and Isaac returned" or "they returned". Perhaps this is a remnant from that "original" story?

Or, perhaps, this is some ancient literary convention (something like those "we" passages in Acts).

[Magdlyn]

What do you imagine Google will tell us, other than "a whole bunch of Christians with web pages think that these people were exceedingly wicked"?

Exodus 13:2 and Leviticus 27:28-29 indicate that God commanded the dedication of every firstborn child to him, and that those so dedicated were to be put to death.


Leviticus and Exodus contradict each other.

RSV:

Lev 27:26 'However, a firstborn among animals, which as a firstborn belongs to the LORD, no man may consecrate it; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD'S.
Lev 27:27 'But if {it is} among the unclean animals, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation and add to it one-fifth of it; and if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your valuation.
Lev 27:28 'Nevertheless, anything which a man sets apart to the LORD out of all that he has, of man or animal or of the fields of his own property, shall not be sold or redeemed. Anything devoted to destruction is most holy to the LORD.
Lev 27:29 'No one who may have been set apart among men shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.

But:

Exd 13:12 you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb. All the firstlings of your cattle that are males shall be the LORD's.
Exd 13:13 Every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.

"Redeem." Which seems to mean, sacrifice an animal when your first son is born. Obviously different Hebrews had a problem with this issue.

" anything which a man sets apart to the LORD out of all that he has, of man or animal or of the fields of his own property, shall not be sold or redeemed."

This does not really seem to indicate a family member. I am sure the "Oral Torah" has a lot to say on the fudging of this difficulty.

[Magdlyn]

So genocide is fine.....so long as you only commit it against the wicked?

Because they were wicked and slaughtered their own infants to their gods its OK to slaughter them, INCLUDING THEIR INFANTS, down to the last one?

Once again, the correct translation, "passed through fire" does not indicate slaughter or sacrifice, contrary to "The Message." :rolleyes Passing through seems to indicate coming out the other side, hm?

A strange logic.

Christians like to claim atheism leads to moral relativism. Yet I so frequently hear christians defending genocide and the slaughter of infants. Strangely enough, despite the so-called lack of basis for morality in atheism I never hear atheists defending such things. Just the opposite.

Ha! Good point.

[triffidfood]

Once again, the correct translation, "passed through fire" does not indicate slaughter or sacrifice ... Passing through seems to indicate coming out the other side, hm?

Yes but, in a religious context, "the other side" could mean anything, couldn't it? Hades, paradise, some xxth heaven type holding station somewhere inbetween ... etc.

Otherwise, what do you feel the phrase *does* mean then? (I'm guessing, "fire" as some sort of symbolism for something, unkess 'singeing people a bit' was some sort of obscure biblical punishment I missed!? ;) )

[Sorry, I'm tired ... you addressed that in your first post Magdlyn ... although I'm not sure about passing between fires/ passing over fire as an alternative, doesn't the text actually say "passing through fire [sing]"?]

[yalla]

I read recently that ''passing through fire etc'' was construed as child sacrifice until fairly recently.
This view was then 'revised' and considered to refer to an initiation ritual and not sacrifice.
Then this view in turn was revised in the light of the discovery of 1000s of urns containing the remains of juveniles and, separately I presume, animals.
The child sacrifice view is back in favour.
All the above relates to Phoenician and Carthaginian religion.
Just reporting, I have no idea myself.

[Magdlyn]

Yes but, in a religious context, "the other side" could mean anything, couldn't it? Hades, paradise, some xxth heaven type holding station somewhere inbetween ... etc.

The Hebrews did not have a concept of an afterlife until contact with the Persians and Zoroastrianism, when Persia overtook Babylon in the 6th century CE. And it was still rudimentary when the book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century.


Otherwise, what do you feel the phrase *does* mean then? (I'm guessing, "fire" as some sort of symbolism for something, unkess 'singeing people a bit' was some sort of obscure biblical punishment I missed!? ;) )

[Sorry, I'm tired ... you addressed that in your first post Magdlyn ... although I'm not sure about passing between fires/ passing over fire as an alternative, doesn't the text actually say "passing through fire [sing]"?]

I am not saying there is no evidence there was ever child sacrifice in the Levant or northern Africa. However, the references to to it in the Hebrew Bible are so obscure and vague, there is no way to draw a conclusion simply from them. Life was hard back then and kids probably often died before age 5, just as they do in many nations today. It woud be counter-intuitive to have people killing their own kids left and right. Maybe it was done now and then in desparation, to "appease" the gods.

(But as far as fire being used as a symbolic purification, well, even John the Baptist said the one coming after him would baptize with fire, didn't he?)

The letters "MLK" which appear in the Hebrew Bible may not even refer to a god at all. MLK does mean king, but may also have other meanings, such a immolation.

However, warring factions often accuse each other of child sacrifices, orgies and other questionable practices, to this day.

The Wikipedia article on Moloch is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

I'd say the jury is still out.

[Chili]

I'd say the jury is still out.

Why don't we just let the talking snake be the judge?

[JEST2ASK]

Why don't we just let the talking snake be the judge?
:notworthy: :rolling:

I think this is the first time I have seen you make a straight foward joke ....
very good ...