# Atheists: favorite Bible passages, and why. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2008, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722 "2008-05-18T05:14:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![vison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e47774/32.png) [@vison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vison)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/61 "2008-05-21T04:32:30Z")
Thank you for that interesting post, Malthus. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/62 "2008-05-21T07:07:45Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] You should remember the context: child-sacrifice was in fact quite widespread in the Ancient ME where Judaism developed. [/QUOTE] Cite? And I mean a non-Biblical one, preferably archaeological. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/63 "2008-05-21T14:19:09Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Cite? And I mean a non-Biblical one, preferably archaeological. [/QUOTE] The best surviving evidence is from the Phonecian colony of Carthage. There is plenty of surviving Roman accounts, which are perhaps biased (but note that they agree with the Biblical accounts, presumably without collusion - i.e. independent witnessess). According to the Wiki article (not the best source, but easy to obtain) the following Roman accounts exist: > [@](#): > > Carthage was notorious to its neighbors for child sacrifice. Plutarch (ca. 46–120 AD) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius and Diodorus Siculus. Livy and Polybius do not. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet (“roasting place”) by the Caananites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites. > > Some of these sources suggest that babies were roasted to death on a heated bronze statue. According to Diodorus Siculus, “There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.” Note that the account of Siculus agrees with the Hebrew accounts. There is naturally a controversy over this: > [@](#): > > The accuracy of such stories is disputed by some modern historians and archaeologists. Nevertheless, several apparent “Tophets” have been identified, including a large one in Carthage. > > Sites within Carthage and other Phoenician centers revealed the remains of infants and children in large numbers; most historians interpret this as evidence for frequent and prominent child sacrifice to the god Ba’al Hammon. > **[Child sacrifice | Phoenicia and Carthage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice#Phoenicia_and_Carthage)** > > The practice of child sacrifice among Canaanite groups is attested by numerous sources spanning over a millennium. One example is in the writings of Diodorus Siculus: An article on the cntroversy: [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05146/510878.stm](http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05146/510878.stm) The notion that the Romans invented the account to slander the Phonecians is hard to sustain, as the Romans themselves had no objection to the murder of infants - by “exposure” - or to human sacrifice _per se_. It strikes me as more likely that the denial of widespread child sacrifice is, essentially, politically motivated by modern concerns. Some archaeological sources: Stager, Lawrence; Samuel. R. Wolff (1984). “Child sacrifice in Carthage: religious rite or population control?”. Journal of Biblical Archeological Review January: 31-46. Brown, Shelby (1991). _Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context_. Sheffield Academic Press, 22-23. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2008, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/64 "2008-05-21T14:21:21Z")
[QUOTE=vison] Thank you for that interesting post, Malthus. [/QUOTE] Thanks. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/65 "2008-05-22T09:17:11Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] The best surviving evidence is from the Phonecian colony of Carthage. There is plenty of surviving Roman accounts, which are perhaps biased (but note that they agree with the Biblical accounts, presumably without collusion - i.e. independent witnessess). [/QUOTE] Carthage is not in the ME. And since the Phoenicians were spread throughout the Med, as were their main rivals, the Greeks (who heavily influenced Roman culture), I can easily see a blood libel spreading. Also, what you’ve said is like saying just because Russian Orthodox and Italian Catholics were independent entities, anti-semitic blood-libel (e.g. Jews killing Christian babies) must be accurate too, since it pops up all over the show. Me, I tend to doubt the word of a victor against their defeated enemy until I see independent confirmation. And you admit the archaeological record is ambiguous. Plus, those archaeological references are just the references from the Wiki page. Have you actually read them? [QUOTE=Malthus] The notion that the Romans invented the account to slander the Phonecians is hard to sustain, as the Romans themselves had no objection to the murder of infants - by “exposure” - or to human sacrifice _per se_. [/QUOTE] This is a logical fallacy. Easy to disprove by showing how a nation (e.g. America) may condemn another nation (e.g. Iran) for practices (e.g. sponsoring terrorism) that it, itself, also engages in (e.g. School of the Americas, People’s Mujaheddin of Iran etc.). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/66 "2008-05-22T14:23:09Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Carthage is not in the ME. And since the Phoenicians were spread throughout the Med, as were their main rivals, the Greeks (who heavily influenced Roman culture), I can easily see a blood libel spreading. Also, what you’ve said is like saying just because Russian Orthodox and Italian Catholics were independent entities, anti-semitic blood-libel (e.g. Jews killing Christian babies) must be accurate too, since it pops up all over the show. Me, I tend to doubt the word of a victor against their defeated enemy until I see independent confirmation. And you admit the archaeological record is ambiguous. Plus, those archaeological references are just the references from the Wiki page. Have you actually read them? [/quote] The difference is that presumably those two groups - Orthodox and Italian Catholics - were reading and enlarging on each other’s version of the “blood libel”. They are not independent witnesses. It seems to me unlikely that Roman historians were reading the (even then very historical) Biblical accounts and adapting them to a present-day enemy. Naturally, the Cartheginians were not in the ME, but that seems quite irrelevant - they were a Phonecian colony; same culture. It is a highly suspicious co-incidence that their cultural descendants just happened to have practiced exactly the same cultural traits, reported by members of a whole different civilization, as much earlier was reported in the Bible. The archeological references are to the leading archaeologists in the field. Please note that one of them is also referred to in the online article reporting on the “controversy”. I have, as a matter of fact, reviewed one of them before - Professor Stager’s work - when an Anthropology undergraduate, many years ago. I do not have it handy. The “controversy” seems to me entirely politically motivated - the scientific consensus opinion appears to be that, as a matter of fact, the Cartheginians certainly practiced child sacrifce (and thus that it is likely that the practice was not uncommon in the culture). Naturally it is difficult to prove definitively, as one cremated remain looks much like another after more than 2,000 years. It is very difficult for archaeology to capture a _ceremony_. > [@](#): > > This is a logical fallacy. Easy to disprove by showing how a nation (e.g. America) may condemn another nation (e.g. Iran) for practices (e.g. sponsoring terrorism) that it, itself, also engages in (e.g. School of the Americas, People’s Mujaheddin of Iran etc.). However, what you are proposing is some sort of version of the anti-semitic “blood libel”. This makes a certain amount of sense in terms of the Hebrews, who evidently had something against human sacrifice; it makes less sense cross-culturally, transplanted to an entirely different culture which _itself had many of the same practices._ Why would the Roman historians choose this particular “libel” out of an (to them) obscure religious book of a minor nation on the other side of the Med., to slander their great enemy with a practice that, to them, probably wasn’t all that horrible anyway - and which plenty of (then) living Romans could contradict from personal knowledge? It would seem that, rather than indulging in elaborate cross-cultural conspiracy theories, one would examine the totality of the evidence - historical and archaeological - and conclude that child sacrifice was a feature of some ancient ME cultures. A cross-cultural comparason indicates that child sacrifice is hardly unknown in plenty of _other_ cultures around the world (for example, the Inca); why is it so hard to accept that it was a feature of the Phonecians and Caananites? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/67 "2008-05-22T15:09:12Z")
[QUOTE=Alessan] Of course Abraham failed the test. That’s why his descendents aren’t called “Abrahamites” - Instead, they’re named after his grandson Israel (AKA Jacob) who got the name by kicking an angel’s ass. Alternately, Abraham went along with it because _he_ was testing _God_. God passed. [/QUOTE] And another alternative is that Abraham does/did indeed have other descendants - Ishmaelites through his illegitimate son, and Edomites through the grandson who sold his birthright for a bowl of lentils. Incidentally Jacob got _his_ butt kicked, or at any rate his hip dislocated, but he got renamed for being a game sort of chap and giving it his best shot. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/68 "2008-05-22T15:57:57Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] And another alternative is that Abraham does/did indeed have other descendants - Ishmaelites through his illegitimate son, and Edomites through the grandson who sold his birthright for a bowl of lentils. Incidentally Jacob got _his_ butt kicked, or at any rate his hip dislocated, but he got renamed for being a game sort of chap and giving it his best shot. [/QUOTE] Well, Jacob seemed to actually holding his own with The Angel (Who may actually have been a manifestation of God, perhaps The Son) until the Angel’s trick hip-dislocating move. _L_ ---
**Author:** ![pmwgreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@pmwgreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pmwgreen)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/69 "2008-05-22T18:37:33Z")
My personal fav right now is one I stumbled across, Luke 16:31 > [@](#): > > And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Which, coming at the end of a parable being told by Jesus, sounds a bit odd. ---
**Author:** ![SpoCkss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@SpoCkss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoCkss)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/70 "2008-05-22T19:53:10Z")
[QUOTE=VarlosZ] The parable of the prodigal son: Going to Catholic school all the way through 12th grade, I always rolled my eyes at this parable because I sympathized with the older brother. It wasn’t until college, when I began leaning heavily Utilitarian, that I realized why the older brother was missing the point. Morality should be forward-looking, not regressive. Your brother is back with us, therefore we ought to celebrate. Being angry with him, though justifiable in a certain abstract sense, serves no purpose and is therefore a vice. This also relates to what I said about the previous parable: we should be happy for the good fortune of others, not bitter because it was not us that received it. The latter is petty and immature. [/QUOTE] I think that parable is a bit meek just like most of the parables on bible. The reason being that the father didn’t celebrate the fact that the other son stayed with him all along. It’s like not telling a women “I love you” while you’re with her, but if she leaves you and then comes back you say it. The son that stayed seems like he stayed hoping to get something in return (love?) because he asked for it when he saw his brother that did everything wrong get it. So imo, that depicts a devoid of love son whose feelings are simply ignored. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/71 "2008-05-23T00:08:23Z")
[QUOTE=SpoCkss] I think that parable is a bit meek just like most of the parables on bible. The reason being that the father didn’t celebrate the fact that the other son stayed with him all along. [/QUOTE] Is that something that people actually do? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/72 "2008-05-23T01:10:23Z")
For Old Testament wrath of god retribution, I like [Psalm 18](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2018;&version=31;) (excerpted) > [@](#): > > I pursued my enemies and overtook them; > I did not turn back till they were destroyed. > > I crushed them so that they could not rise; > they fell beneath my feet. > > You armed me with strength for battle; > you made my adversaries bow at my feet. > > You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, > and I destroyed my foes. > > They cried for help, but there was no one to save them- > to the LORD , but he did not answer. > > I beat them as fine as dust borne on the wind; > I poured them out like mud in the streets. What good is an omnipotent god if you cannot depend on him to destroy your enemies in the nick of time? ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/73 "2008-05-23T01:53:54Z")
A new commandment I give unto you: that you love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. –John 13:34 If there were a god, I’d want to hear him say things like this. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/74 "2008-05-23T09:35:39Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] The difference is that presumably those two groups - Orthodox and Italian Catholics - were reading and enlarging on each other’s version of the “blood libel”. They are not independent witnesses. [/QUOTE] Why do you then discount that the Phoenicians’ opponents may similarly not have been independent? Certainly there were Hellenistic influences on both Roman and Levantine culture. So might they not have derived their blood-libel from the same source? And I’d hardly call the Hebrew texts “witness” accounts, as it seems likely they were compiled after the Exile, from sources that in any case date after the events depicted. [QUOTE=Malthus] Naturally, the Cartheginians were not in the ME, but that seems quite irrelevant - they were a Phonecian colony; same culture. [/QUOTE] You don’t think a colony city founded at the \*end \*of it’s parent culture’s heyday, that then continues for another 800 years, might develop a _slightly_ different culture from its parent? Certainly the Romans didn’t claim the Carthaginians were sacrificing to the same god as the Canaanites. [QUOTE=Malthus] It is a highly suspicious co-incidence that their cultural descendants just happened to have practiced exactly the same cultural traits, reported by members of a whole different civilization, as much earlier was reported in the Bible. [/QUOTE] You seem to be implying that there was complete isolation between cultures in the Med - well, with the exception of the Phoenicians. :dubious: If Phoenician culture spread throughout the Med, why not the blood-libel against them, too? I’ve already provided adequate reasoning for why this might be so (Hellenistic trade rivalry). I think it mirrors the Medieval/modern Jewish blood-libel quite well. [QUOTE=Malthus] The archeological references are to the leading archaeologists in the field. Please note that one of them is also referred to in the online article reporting on the “controversy”. I have, as a matter of fact, reviewed one of them before - Professor Stager’s work - when an Anthropology undergraduate, many years ago. I do not have it handy. [/QUOTE] So you admit you’re unable to provide quotes that back up the textual evidence with archeological ones? I don’t subscribe to JSTOR, but I think a cite should be something everyone involved has an opportunity to read, don’t you? [QUOTE=Malthus] The “controversy” seems to me entirely politically motivated - the scientific consensus opinion appears to be that, as a matter of fact, the Cartheginians certainly practiced child sacrifce (and thus that it is likely that the practice was not uncommon in the culture). [/QUOTE] I think it’s a bit pat to say the consensus opinion says something when youv’e already acknowledged that there is still debate ongoing about this. [QUOTE=Malthus] Naturally it is difficult to prove definitively, as one cremated remain looks much like another after more than 2,000 years. It is very difficult for archaeology to capture a _ceremony_. [/QUOTE] That’s my point - so the only other evidence for the sacrifices is admittedly biased sources. > [@](#): > > However, what you are proposing is some sort of version of the anti-semitic “blood libel”. This makes a certain amount of sense in terms of the Hebrews, who evidently had something against human sacrifice; it makes less sense cross-culturally, transplanted to an entirely different culture which _itself had many of the same practices._ Why would the Roman historians choose this particular “libel” out of an (to them) obscure religious book of a minor nation on the other side of the Med., to slander their great enemy with a practice that, to them, probably wasn’t all that horrible anyway - and which plenty of (then) living Romans could contradict from personal knowledge? I don’t think they didn’t take it directly from Hebrew textual sources (not that there weren’t Jewish settlements in Roman cities, either), I think they repeated a verbal blood-libel that was common throughout the Med, wherever Phoenicians traders were known. I see it as directly analogous to the Jewish blood-libel. > [@](#): > > It would seem that, rather than indulging in elaborate cross-cultural conspiracy theories, one would examine the totality of the evidence - historical and archaeological - and conclude that child sacrifice was a feature of some ancient ME cultures. I do not deny that _some_ child sacrifice was practiced. I just deny that it was at all as widespread in the Israelite’s neighbours as the Bible would have us believe. The Bible is well-known for factual inaccuracies, especially from Exodus times, but also regarding facts about the so-called Davidic “Empire” up to the Exile. > [@](#): > > A cross-cultural comparason indicates that child sacrifice is hardly unknown in plenty of _other_ cultures around the world (for example, the Inca); why is it so hard to accept that it was a feature of the Phonecians and Caananites? Because we have Inca sacrificial mummies, we have victims dedicated to Tlaloc. We don’t have the same unambiguous evidence for regular Canaanite sacrifice as depicted in the Bible. Just some cremated bones, from a society that apparently cremated all their dead anyway. Or is there some other way unborn babies could be “sacrificed”? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/75 "2008-05-23T15:11:44Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Why do you then discount that the Phoenicians’ opponents may similarly not have been independent? Certainly there were Hellenistic influences on both Roman and Levantine culture. So might they not have derived their blood-libel from the same source? [/quote] Wait, are you claiming that the ancient Hebrews derived their opinions of their neighbours from the _Greeks_ now? :dubious: > [@](#): > > And I’d hardly call the Hebrew texts “witness” accounts, as it seems likely they were compiled after the Exile, from sources that in any case date after the events depicted. Redacted at a later date, certainly. That does not mean they are to be entirely discounted, as certainly parts derive from much earlier oral sources. > [@](#): > > You don’t think a colony city founded at the \*end \*of it’s parent culture’s heyday, that then continues for another 800 years, might develop a _slightly_ different culture from its parent? Certainly the Romans didn’t claim the Carthaginians were sacrificing to the same god as the Canaanites. The Romans tended to assume that the gods of whatever other peoples they were in touch with were the same as Roman gods, only with different names - hence, not the best source for exact identification. But yes, I do imagine a certain amount of cultural continuity - consider the example of the Hebrews themselves. It would be a quite remarkable co-incidence if a colony _just happened_ to display the exact same odd sacrificial habits as was reported of the parent culture. Why suspect that (a) the original reporter was deliberately lying and (b) the colony _just happened_ to develop the (very remarkable) culture-trait _quite independantly_ at some later date? The more simple explaination is that there has been some measure of cultural continuity. > [@](#): > > You seem to be implying that there was complete isolation between cultures in the Med - well, with the exception of the Phoenicians. :dubious: If Phoenician culture spread throughout the Med, why not the blood-libel against them, too? I’ve already provided adequate reasoning for why this might be so (Hellenistic trade rivalry). I think it mirrors the Medieval/modern Jewish blood-libel quite well. I think it mirrors it not at all. For something to be a “libel” it must first be libelous. There is no evidence that anyone other than the Hebrews thought it was - you are projecting modern prejudices onto the past. Second, cultural continuity within a culture is one thing; an obscure bit of anthropological information about a _quite different_ culture is something else. The difference is that between the Scythians passing down through the generations certain animal-motifs in art among the steppe peoples, and the Hebrews becomming aware of the depiction of Scythians in the works of Heroditous; the first is simply more probable than the second. > [@](#): > > So you admit you’re unable to provide quotes that back up the textual evidence with archeological ones? I don’t subscribe to JSTOR, but I think a cite should be something everyone involved has an opportunity to read, don’t you? When asking about obscure topics of archaeology, not everything is available on-line. In my day we had these things known as “libraries”. We went there to read stuff. You asked for cites; I’ve provided them, directly on topic. The rest, I’m afraid, is up to you. > [@](#): > > I think it’s a bit pat to say the consensus opinion says something when youv’e already acknowledged that there is still debate ongoing about this. Except the “debate” is mostly created by modern-day inhabitants of that part of the world unhappy with the Carthiginians being depicted as infanticides. It is politically motivated. The actual archaeologists are more or less in consensus - it happened. > [@](#): > > That’s my point - so the only other evidence for the sacrifices is admittedly biased sources. I don’t think they didn’t take it directly from Hebrew textual sources (not that there weren’t Jewish settlements in Roman cities, either), I think they repeated a verbal blood-libel that was common throughout the Med, wherever Phoenicians traders were known. I see it as directly analogous to the Jewish blood-libel. You atre of course free to believe what you want. There is not a shred of actual evidence you have advanced for such a theory. > [@](#): > > I do not deny that _some_ child sacrifice was practiced. I just deny that it was at all as widespread in the Israelite’s neighbours as the Bible would have us believe. How widespread is that? Please quote me from the Bible where it discusses the _frequency_ of child sacrifices among Israelite’s neighbours. This should be, I would point out, considerably easier that pulling references to archaeology and historiography, as all of the Bible is available on-line. > [@](#): > > The Bible is well-known for factual inaccuracies, especially from Exodus times, but also regarding facts about the so-called Davidic “Empire” up to the Exile. Before you move on to “factual inaccuracies” of the Bible, it would be useful to know what it actually says. I think if you actually read it, you will see quite clearly it was not a “blood libel”, but rather as something that the Hebrews were quite attracted to, as something that was, in fact, part of their common cultural heritage. You will recall that child sacrifice in Carthage was said to be something done of high-ranking victims in time of disaster and war, to ensure victory (again, recall Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigeneia in the _Illiad_). > [@](#): > > Agamemnon gathered the reluctant Greek forces to sail for Troy. Preparing to depart from Aulis, which was a port in Boeotia, Agamemnon’s army incurred the wrath of the goddess Artemis. There are several reasons throughout myth for such wrath: in Aeschylus’ play Agamemnon, Artemis is angry for the young men who will die at Troy, whereas in Sophocles’ Electra, Agamemnon has slain an animal sacred to Artemis, and subsequently boasted that he was Artemis’s equal in hunting. Misfortunes, including a plague and a lack of wind, prevented the army from sailing. Finally, the prophet Calchas announced that the wrath of the goddess could only be propitiated by the sacrifice of Agamemnon’s daughter Iphigeneia. Classical dramatizations differ on how willing either father or daughter were to this fate, some include such trickery as claiming she was to be married to Achilles, but Agamemnon did eventually sacrifice Iphigeneia. Her death appeased Artemis, and the Greek army set out for Troy. > **[Agamemnon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon)** > > In Greek mythology, Agamemnon (/æɡəˈmɛmnɒn/ ⓘ; Ancient Greek: Ἀγαμέμνων Agamémnōn) was a king of Mycenae who commanded the Achaeans during the Trojan War. He was the son (or grandson) of King Atreus and Queen Aerope, the brother of Menelaus, the husband of Clytemnestra, and the father of Iphigenia, Iphianassa, Electra, Laodike, Orestes and Chrysothemis. Legends make him the king of Mycenae or Argos, thought to be different names for the same area. Agamemnon was killed upon his return from T Dif... Here’s a version from the Bible, 2 Kings 3:27: > [@](#): > > 26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom; but they could not. > > Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to their own land. Note that this is very similar to the Cartheginian habit; also note that according to the Bible it was **successful**. Then, consider Judges 11.31 and 11.39, where the Hebrew Jephthah sacrifices his own daughter as a “burnt offering” because of a vow he’d undertaken, to secure victory in war. Again, a child sacrifice was successful. > [@](#): > > 29(AD) Then the Spirit of the LORD was upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh and passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites. 30And Jephthah(AE) made a vow to the LORD and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31then whatever[a] comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites(AF) shall be the LORD’s, and(AG) I will offer it\*\* up for a burnt offering.” 32So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the LORD gave them into his hand. 33And he struck them from Aroer to the neighborhood of(AH) Minnith, twenty cities, and as far as Abel-keramim, with a great blow. So the Ammonites were subdued before the people of Israel. > 34Then Jephthah came to his home at(AI) Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him(AJ) with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the LORD,(AK) and I cannot take back my vow.” 36And she said to him, “My father, you have opened your mouth to the LORD; do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, now that the LORD has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites.” 37So she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: leave me alone two months, that I may go up and down on the mountains and weep for my virginity, I and my companions.” 38So he said, “Go.” Then he sent her away for two months, and she departed, she and her companions, and wept for her virginity on the mountains. 39And at the end of two months, she returned to her father,(AL) who did with her according to his vow that he had made. She had never known a man, and it became a custom in Israel 40that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year. So here you have an quite widespread sacrificial complex - a very similar story being told by the Greeks of themselves (Iphigeneia), the Hebrews of themselves (the daughter of Jephthah), and the Hebrews of their neighbours (the King of Moab’s son). In all cases the sacrifice is depicted as _successful_. In addition, you have actual archaeological evidence of a sacrificial cult in Carthage, and contemporary Roman accounts of the same. According to your theory, it was all a sort of multi-centuries-old cross-cultural “blood libel”. That makes no sense, as your supposed originators of the “libel” saw no shame in proclaiming that their own culture-heros practiced it; the Hebrews, main spreaders of the “libel”, _also_ claim that _their_ culture-heros practiced it; and in all these cases, every reporter save the Romans claimed that, as a matter of fact, it _worked_. Isn’t it rather more likely that these accounts, mythologized though they are in part, depict a very real, ancient, and above all _widespread_ sacrifical complex in which leaders were expected to sacrifice their children for the public good in times of crisis? And if that was the case … could not the story of the binding of Issac be seen against this background as a story explaining why the Hebrews _no longer participate_ in what would, at the time, be widely understood as an _effective_ ritual? ---
**Author:** ![Bobotheoptimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/919ad9/32.png) [@Bobotheoptimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobotheoptimist)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/76 "2008-05-23T16:40:15Z")
Heck, I’m nearly as amused by people trying to justify biblical passages as I am by the passages themselves. “No, God didn’t _really_ order his generals to cut open the bellies of pregnant women and dash babies against the rocks… Besides, they deserved it! Soulless heathens…” I’m not referring to **Malthus** of course, just a general observation. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/77 "2008-05-23T18:29:50Z")
[QUOTE=Bobotheoptimist] Heck, I’m nearly as amused by people trying to justify biblical passages as I am by the passages themselves. “No, God didn’t _really_ order his generals to cut open the bellies of pregnant women and dash babies against the rocks… Besides, they deserved it! Soulless heathens…” I’m not referring to **Malthus** of course, just a general observation. [/QUOTE] Heh, the Bible contains much that is abhorrent by today’s standards - and, on the other hand, much that went into creating today’s standards. To my mind, the document cannot be usefully considered outside its historical context, and is best understood as the product of a long line of cultural evolution. When reading Judges, for example, one is reading survivals of a very ancient oral tradition that (for example) took child sacrifice in its stride - as the story of Jephthah’s daughter indicates. Later, the morality of those creating aspects of the Bible changed, and child-sacrifice (for example) became presumptively wrong and bad. This can be seen in Jeremiah 7:31, cursing the Sons of Judah for practicing it: > [@](#): > > 30"For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, declares the LORD. They have set(BG) their detestable things in the house(BH) that is called by my name, to defile it. 31And they have built the high places of(BI) Topheth, which is in(BJ) the Valley of the Son of Hinnom,(BK) to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire,(BL) which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. The “binding of Issac” represents, in mythological form, the exact moment in which the ancient Hebrews decided that their God, unlike other gods, did not require child sacrifice - and it went from presuptively Okay to "evil in my sight " something “I did not command, nor did it come into my mind”. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/78 "2008-05-23T20:27:12Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Wait, are you claiming that the ancient Hebrews derived their opinions of their neighbours from the _Greeks_ now? :dubious: [/QUOTE] By your dubiosity, I take it you’re counter-claiming that there had been no cultural contamination of Hebrew myth between the supposed events and the recording of same? [QUOTE=Malthus] Redacted at a later date, certainly. That does not mean they are to be entirely discounted, as certainly parts derive from much earlier oral sources. [/QUOTE] And some date only from the exile itself - at least. per the Documentary Hypothesis. [QUOTE=Malthus] The Romans tended to assume that the gods of whatever other peoples they were in touch with were the same as Roman gods, only with different names - hence, not the best source for exact identification. [/QUOTE] …but you’re willing to make the leap from Saturn to Moloch anyway… > [@](#): > > But yes, I do imagine a certain amount of cultural continuity - consider the example of the Hebrews themselves. What - are you claiming Hebrew culture was consistent through both all the times and places Jews found themselves? > [@](#): > > It would be a quite remarkable co-incidence if a colony _just happened_ to display the exact same odd sacrificial habits as was reported of the parent culture. Why suspect that (a) the original reporter was deliberately lying and (b) the colony _just happened_ to develop the (very remarkable) culture-trait _quite independantly_ at some later date? I’m not proposing it developed the same trait - I’m proposing the blood-libel followed it. > [@](#): > > I think it mirrors it not at all. For something to be a “libel” it must first be libelous. There is no evidence that anyone other than the Hebrews thought it was - you are projecting modern prejudices onto the past. Things are called “blood-libel” entirely from our modern perspective, so it’s not projecting. _We_ call the Jews-eat-babies thing a blood-libel, not the Medievals. > [@](#): > > You asked for cites; I’ve provided them, directly on topic. The rest, I’m afraid, is up to you. C’mon - you know that’s not the kind of cite pertinent to an internet discussion. > [@](#): > > Except the “debate” is mostly created by modern-day inhabitants of that part of the world unhappy with the Carthiginians being depicted as infanticides. It is politically motivated. > > The actual archaeologists are more or less in consensus - it happened. I wasn’t especially referring to Carthage, but what was (Roman-born Jew) Sabatino Moscati’s political motivation, please? > [@](#): > > You atre of course free to believe what you want. There is not a shred of actual evidence you have advanced for such a theory. Other than the circumstantial evidence that other cross-cultural, persistent blood libels do exist. But it’s as hard to prove something didn’t happen as to prove it did. All we have is the ambiguous bones. > [@](#): > > How widespread is that? Please quote me from the Bible where it discusses the _frequency_ of child sacrifices among Israelite’s neighbours. “Widespread” in the sense that it gets mentioned in different time periods, from the Exodus right up to Jeremiah. Plus, _you_ were the one who said it was “widespread in the ME” in relation to Isaac > [@](#): > > I think if you actually read it, you will see quite clearly it was not a “blood libel”, but rather as something that the Hebrews were quite attracted to, as something that was, in fact, part of their common cultural heritage. But condemned by the authors of the books. > [@](#): > > You will recall that child sacrifice in Carthage was said to be something done of high-ranking victims in time of disaster and war, to ensure victory (again, recall Agamemnon’s sacrifice of Iphigeneia in the _Illiad_). I am familiar with it - that’s the jump-off point for my whole Hellenistic influence theory - notice the similarity between the stories of Iphigeneia and the daughter of Jephthah you also quoted. You see a widespread child-killing cult, I see a literary archetype. > [@](#): > > Note that this is very similar to the Cartheginian habit; also note that according to the Bible it was **successful**. “According to the Bible” has no meaning to me as a statement of fact. > [@](#): > > So here you have an quite widespread sacrificial complex - a very similar story being told by the Greeks of themselves (Iphigeneia), the Hebrews of themselves (the daughter of Jephthah), and the Hebrews of their neighbours (the King of Moab’s son). “A very similar story” - and not even from the same cultural continuity. Do you see why that makes me raise my eyebrows? > [@](#): > > In addition, you have actual archaeological evidence of a sacrificial cult in Carthage, and contemporary Roman accounts of the same. Disputed evidence, first put forward by people who were quite prepared to take the Romans at their word. Similar to people who might take the Bible as a good source for Levantine archeology. > [@](#): > > According to your theory, it was all a sort of multi-centuries-old cross-cultural “blood libel”. That makes no sense, as your supposed originators of the “libel” saw no shame in proclaiming that their own culture-heros practiced it; I’ve already addressed thpervasive nature of that sort of doublethink. It proves nothing > [@](#): > > the Hebrews, main spreaders of the “libel”, _also_ claim that _their_ culture-heros practiced it; But the practice is also condemned in other places. Plus the whole daughter of Jephthah thing is ambiguous. > [@](#): > > and in all these cases, every reporter save the Romans claimed that, as a matter of fact, it _worked_. So what? We know it really, really didn’t work, since there was no Moloch/Saturn/Artemis. Just because it makes a good story that it worked, doesn’t mean much. So did marching around a city and blowing trumpets. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it rather more likely that these accounts, mythologized though they are in part, depict a very real, ancient, and above all _widespread_ sacrifical complex in which leaders were expected to sacrifice their children for the public good in times of crisis? This might make more sense if we didn’t have the counterbalancing example of the Jewish blood-libel, which stands as a stark example that such a story (often involving children) can, and did, last centuries, be worldwide (and the Jewish one has adherents stretching from Asia to the Rockies) and yet still be a lie. > [@](#): > > And if that was the case … could not the story of the binding of Issac be seen against this background as a story explaining why the Hebrews _no longer participate_ in what would, at the time, be widely understood as an _effective_ ritual? But the binding of Isaac happens long before events in _Judges_ and _Kings_, so clearly that can’t be the lesson it means to impart, especially since, as you point out, it was still considered to work at these later dates. Look, just to end the hijack - I don’t disagree that there is some evidence for some incidents of child sacrifice in the ME, both literary and archaeological. What I was asking for was a hard cite for your statement that “child-sacrifice was in fact **quite widespread in the Ancient ME** where Judaism developed”. And no, I don’t consider anything to do with the Carthage of 200 BCE, related to us by biased sources ranging from 60BCE to 400 CE, particularly relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/79 "2008-05-23T21:18:14Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] By your dubiosity, I take it you’re counter-claiming that there had been no cultural contamination of Hebrew myth between the supposed events and the recording of same? [/quote] I find it dubious to assume that the Hebrews adopted a Greek blood-libel, yes. > [@](#): > > And some date only from the exile itself - at least. per the Documentary Hypothesis I believe that the Bible was redacted from numerous sources at different times, yes. > [@](#): > > …but you’re willing to make the leap from Saturn to Moloch anyway… Of course. Just because the Romans were inclined to identify the Scythian war-god as “Mars” doesn’t mean the Sythians had no war-god and the Romans just invented the whole thing. > [@](#): > > What - are you claiming Hebrew culture was consistent through both all the times and places Jews found themselves? No, just that it isn’t incredible to presume some cultural continuity. > [@](#): > > I’m not proposing it developed the same trait - I’m proposing the blood-libel followed it. Again, this seems more incredible than that cultural continuity is the explaination. > [@](#): > > Things are called “blood-libel” entirely from our modern perspective, so it’s not projecting. _We_ call the Jews-eat-babies thing a blood-libel, not the Medievals. The point is whether or not it is a “libel”, not what it is called; the “projection” lies in the assumption that the behaviour was considered not only abhorrent, but so very and uniquely abhorrent that wholly different cultures happily adopted it as a libel. > [@](#): > > C’mon - you know that’s not the kind of cite pertinent to an internet discussion. If the subject is sufficently obscure, that’s the only “cite” in existance. It is silly to pretend there is no scholarly work on a subject just because it isn’t readily available in text online. > [@](#): > > I wasn’t especially referring to Carthage, but what was (Roman-born Jew) Sabatino Moscati’s political motivation, please? Other than the circumstantial evidence that other cross-cultural, persistent blood libels do exist. Yet you weren’t happy with proof from other cultures that child-sacrifice exists. > [@](#): > > But it’s as hard to prove something didn’t happen as to prove it did. All we have is the ambiguous bones. … which is why one refers to a number of sources, such as the literary, in an attempt to obtain the best evidence available. Only you have rejected it all. > [@](#): > > “Widespread” in the sense that it gets mentioned in different time periods, from the Exodus right up to Jeremiah. … only it is just as frequently stated that the _Hebrews_ did it, as that their neighbours did; sometimes with disapproval, and sometimes not. There is no overall _condemnation_ of non-Hebrews as child-sacrificers at all! This evidence doesn’t fit at all with the notion of a “blood libel”; it fits much better with the notion of a widespread belief that human sacrifice was effective, and its practice among the various cultures (including the Hebrew). Until of course at some point the Hebrew ceased to do it. > [@](#): > > Plus, _you_ were the one who said it was “widespread in the ME” in relation to Isaac And indeed it was. Not frequent, but widespread - in Greece too, and maybe even further afield. Indeed, the notion of sacrificing a _son_ being of particular potency isn’t exactly unknown in Christianity … 😉 > [@](#): > > But condemned by the authors of the books. Not always; in fact, more often not. > [@](#): > > I am familiar with it - that’s the jump-off point for my whole Hellenistic influence theory - notice the similarity between the stories of Iphigeneia and the daughter of Jephthah you also quoted. … neither story would make any sense if child-sacrifice was totally alien in the cultures involved. Consider: ‘King Louis of France was closely besieged in his castle. Fearing the worst, he bound his son, his only son and heir, to a rock and made of him a burnt offering. Christ accepted this offering, and King Louis sallied out and scattered his enemies’. Likely? It seems to me that such stories indicate a widespread acceptance of sacrifice in the cultures in which they appear. > [@](#): > > You see a widespread child-killing cult, I see a literary archetype. That’s just the problem: as a literary archetype, it makes no sense unless people hearing it were likely to accept that their gods do indeed demand (and accept) such sacrifices. When teasing out the meaning of another literary archetype - the story of Issac - the same applies, of course. > [@](#): > > “According to the Bible” has no meaning to me as a statement of fact. Fortunately, you don’t get to choose whether something is a “fact” or not. Obviously, just because a legend is told in the Bible doesn’t mean it literally happend. But that doesn’t mean it is wholly meaningless, either. It can tell us a lot about what people _believed in_. In this case, it tells us that whoever first told this story believed that child sacrifice worked. > [@](#): > > “A very similar story” - and not even from the same cultural continuity. Do you see why that makes me raise my eyebrows? No, not really. Are you saying that the Hebrews adopted it from the Iliad, or vice versa? Isn’t it more likely that they developed from consideration of the same background? > [@](#): > > Disputed evidence, first put forward by people who were quite prepared to take the Romans at their word. Similar to people who might take the Bible as a good source for Levantine archeology. Well, I guess if you are willing to hand-wave away all literary and historical evidence, and archaeology can’t tell you about ceremonies - then ceremonies didn’t happen? :dubious: > [@](#): > > I’ve already addressed thpervasive nature of that sort of doublethink. It proves nothing But the practice is also condemned in other places. Plus the whole daughter of Jephthah thing is ambiguous. You have to choose - is it the same as the Iliad, or is it ambiguous? It can’t be both. > [@](#): > > So what? We know it really, really didn’t work, since there was no Moloch/Saturn/Artemis. Just because it makes a good story that it worked, doesn’t mean much. So did marching around a city and blowing trumpets. You can’t seriously be thinking I actually believe it works, can you? 😛 Of course I don’t. What I believe is that _ancient peoples_ believed it works. That means a lot, in this debate, as it is the issue under debate. > [@](#): > > This might make more sense if we didn’t have the counterbalancing example of the Jewish blood-libel, which stands as a stark example that such a story (often involving children) can, and did, last centuries, be worldwide (and the Jewish one has adherents stretching from Asia to the Rockies) and yet still be a lie. Yet no evidence has been advanced that the ancients, other than some Hebrews, saw it as _inherently horrible_ (as opposed to tragic). > [@](#): > > But the binding of Isaac happens long before events in _Judges_ and _Kings_, so clearly that can’t be the lesson it means to impart, especially since, as you point out, it was still considered to work at these later dates. Heh, that isn’t how _mythology_ works. You are mistaking the Bible for a work of history. It is quite possible, indeed probable, that the Binding of Issac is a story that dates from a later time than the Book of Judges, which (although later in the chronology of the Bible) may reflect stories from an earlier time. > [@](#): > > Look, just to end the hijack - I don’t disagree that there is some evidence for some incidents of child sacrifice in the ME, both literary and archaeological. What I was asking for was a hard cite for your statement that “child-sacrifice was in fact **quite widespread in the Ancient ME** where Judaism developed”. > > And no, I don’t consider anything to do with the Carthage of 200 BCE, related to us by biased sources ranging from 60BCE to 400 CE, particularly relevant. I think the evidence is as solid as it can be, given the distance in time and the difficulties inherent in recording a ceremony. By “widespread” I did not mean “happens all the time”, but that many cultures embraced it as an effective techique of worship, particularly in times of war and stress. Indeed, I’d go further - not only was child sacrifice a widespread meme in the ME, it was in Greece as well, and probably lots of other places. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722/80 "2008-05-24T20:05:30Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] By “widespread” I did not mean “happens all the time”, but that many cultures embraced it as an effective techique of worship, particularly in times of war and stress. [/QUOTE] OK, I can see this whole thing is a miscommunication then. I’ll buy that theory. I read your “widespread” as “pervasive”. That’s not what you meant. End Hijack. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-favorite-bible-passages-and-why/449722.md?page=3)