Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!reiher From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Human Sacrafice / Why H.L. Mencken thought the ancients were crazy Message-ID: <7307@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 14:52:47 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.7307 Posted: Tue Oct 29 14:52:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 05:08:52 EST References: <445@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (Peter Reiher) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 131 Summary: 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