Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Monday 23 August 2004 17:01, Patrina wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:06:57 -0600, "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
> said:
>
> [Patrina wrote:]
>
> > > The problem with that view of course is that YHWH does NOT accept human
> > > sacrifice and forbids it, no matter how willing the victim.  The idea
> > > of an innocent substitute being sacrificed to remove guilt was common
> > > in the ANE. It wasn't always an animal but was often a firstborn child!
> > > However, in Jeremiah YHWH states that human sacrifice never even
> > > entered his mind (Jer 7:31).  In Torah terms a human sacrifice for
> > > atonement is simply not valid, and was a practice that was bitterly
> > > opposed by Jeremiah, since it was still being practised at the Tophets.
> > >  The very idea of YHWH yielding his innocent "firstborn son" like
> > > worshippers of Baal Hamon - who brought their innocent firstborn sons
> > > to the Tophet as
> > > whole burnt offerings - is totally absurd, and to be honest, as a
> > > former Christian I never thought deeply enough on this issue.
>
> [Dave wrote:]
>
> > This reflects a drastic misunderstanding of the theology behind the
> > central
> > event of Christianity.  It includes not only Jesus' death, but
> > resurrection
> > as well.  Equating it with "human sacrifice," and particularly with
> > Canaanite
> > practices, misconstrues the whole idea, but as this topic is very far
> > afield
> > from list purposes, that's as much as I'll say.  Harold has already
> > addressed
> > most of it much more eloquently than I can anyway.
>
> Dave, I'll let this be my last word on the topic too.  Your mention of
> resurrection is relevant to the topic of innocent firstborn sacrifice as
> atonement for sin.  These firstborn children were MLK offerings (see
> Carthage), who carried the sinner's penitence to "god" as the smoke rose
> to the heavens - pure innocent intercessors.  It's not the same as
> bodily resurrection obviously, but this ancient understanding obviously
> made a new Christian application of these understandings very appealing
> to 1st century CE minds and beyond.

Sorry, but there's nothing "obvious" about such a tenuous (and frankly, 
contrived-sounding) connection unless one is predisposed to see it.  And that 
truly is my final word on the topic.

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk