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