1. does it have some magical power to remove your sin in a metaphysical sense?
or
2. is it like a washing up detergent which cleans the areas you infected ?
if you had a thought of blaspheming g-d this would be abstract ?
i find in job 1:5 that a burnt olah offering can atone for blaspheming g-d in heart
“it may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed god in thier hearts”
burnt olah offerings have potentials to atone for “maybe”
jakejones said
it appears to me that animal offerings weren’t a “cover” like apologists want them to be, but real magical stuff which can clear the sin.
A “cover”? Please define. I suspect that those who made animal offerings presumed that they had a genuinely supernatural value, although they might balk at the word “magical.” I suspect that they also saw them as an obligation, for whatever purpose.
An interesting subject. The evidence is that animal sacrifice arose rather late, with the domestication of animals and the rise of sedentary agricultural civilization. There is much reason to think it developed as a substitute for human sacrifice, a much more ancient practice going back at least as far as the Neolithic. It’s difficult to speculate about the thought processes of pre-literate societies but their modern analogues and survivals think quite concretely. It is literate societies that think in terms of metaphors and analogies and abstractions. Blood is life. To us that’s a metaphor, an event in language. The ancients were having an experience. Hence the power of the sacrifice.
Human sacrifice, especially if we are talking about infanticide, is a complicated issue. Before effective means of birth control, it may have mostly been a means of controlling population, particularly in circumstances of limited resources. Over time, a link may have come to be perceived between some sacrifices and a relationship of abundance or scarcity. It is indeed very hard to make firm statements about such matters in pre-historic times, which probably will not prevent some people from doing so anyway.
One scholar currently doing interesting research is Heath Dewrell who has written ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is an interview with Prof Dewrell about the subject. One of the takeaways from this eye-opening (and hair-raising!) research is that the term Molech refers not to a specific deity that demanded child sacrifice but to a type of sacrifice involving many Ancient Near Eastern deities – including Yahweh!
The Hebrew Bible uniformly condemns the practice but why would you have to condemn a practice that wasn’t taking place? Many scholars think the story of Abraham and Isaac was designed to assure its readers that human sacrifice was no longer divinely sanctioned. But it used to be divinely sanctioned and the practice was not simply an archaic custom. What was herem if not a sacrifice to Yahweh? (Even if the Conquest was ahistorical that doesn’t controvert the approval of the practice.)
The Aztecs believed that sacrifice was integral to the functioning of all creation. The gods sacrificed themselves to maintain the cosmic order. In gratitude human beings incurred an obligation to reciprocate. Post-conquest sources report that at the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, over the course of four days the Aztecs sacrificed about 80,000 prisoners. That’s about 15 ritual murders a minute folks!
And what is the crucifixion of Jesus but a human sacrifice? That it was considered singular and final merely confirms its power. We consume his blood and his body and are spiritually transformed. Infinitely preferable to the horror of the molech but in substance different how exactly?
Robert said
80,000, wow!
There are some historians who think this figure might be exaggerated. It could have been closer to 10,000. Only two every minute. What a relief!
JAS said
More seriously, I wonder if any distinction should be made between sacrifice and ritualized executions.
That’s an interesting question. I wonder if the Romans considered crucifixion to be a ritualized execution? I suspect the Aztecs thought they were fulfilling both functions and might not have made a distinction.
We necessarily get into the complicated matter of words and meaning once again. Perhaps someone can offer whether or not the words in the original languages have or do not have similar nuances. I do not really have a fully realized position on this matter, but am thinking it through as I write this.
Sacrifice implies, at least based on context, a voluntary cooperation that I think can never apply to execution. Animals, of course, cannot really be thought of as consciously cooperating with being sacrificed. Consequently, the voluntary aspect can only apply to human sacrifice, and it does appear that such sacrifice was often voluntary. On the other hand, Abraham’s demanded offering of his son Isaac is referred to as a sacrifice (at least in translation), and it seems clear that Isaac has no idea of what would happen to him if Abraham proceeded. In this case, it would seem that sacrifice was not voluntary.
I think of ritualized execution primarily in the context of many thousands of prisoners being sacrificed by the Mayans, from Stephen’s post. These are prisoners, and thus almost certainly not really voluntary in the proceedings in any meaningful sense, and they are being slaughtered in a ceremony in numbers that are entirely contrary to the general idea of the rare and special sense that often accompanies a sacrifice. Sacrificing a bull was presumably considered a more special offering than a dove or even dozens of doves. I suppose for the very wealthy, it would be possible to sacrifice a larger number of bulls, but I doubt that they would have done so for thousands at one time. Actually checking this a bit, I see that I am somewhat wrong here. Numbers 7:88 has “The total number of animals for the sacrifice of the fellowship offering came to twenty-four oxen, sixty rams, sixty male goats and sixty male lambs a year old. These were the offerings for the dedication of the altar after it was anointed.” But thousands or tens of thousands? Looking further, I see that in 2 Chronicles 7:5 we have “King Solomon offered as a sacrifice 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.” That still seems rather ostentatious, but, again, these are animals not humans. Here, the only sense of sacrifice is that Solomon is voluntarily giving up the money that such a large number of animals would represent.
The Romans having prisoners crucified seems not, to me, to rise to the level of sacrifice in any meaningful sense. It is capital punishment, and punishment is certainly part of what I think of with execution, whether or not that punishment might be seen as justified in any context other than that of the person carrying out the deed. It does not even seem very ritualized; it just seems to me that it has the bland sense of a routine. From their perspective, crucifying Jesus was just one more execution.
For Jesus, from his perspective, he is presented as understanding that he will die, and calmly, voluntarily going along with that process. (Dr. Ehrman has made some explanation of differences in presentations of how Jesus actually responds during the process of being crucified, but I am mostly talking about events that lead up to being executed rather than the execution itself.) Such an acceptance of participating in events that will result in his death seems to me to very much fit the idea of sacrifice.
Does any of this seem to makes sense to anyone else, or am I just trying to spin gold out of straw?
JAS said
We necessarily get into the complicated matter of words and meaning once again. Perhaps someone can offer whether or not the words in the original languages have or do not have similar nuances. I do not really have a fully realized position on this matter, but am thinking it through as I write this.Sacrifice implies, at least based on context, a voluntary cooperation that I think can never apply to execution. Animals, of course, cannot really be thought of as consciously cooperating with being sacrificed. Consequently, the voluntary aspect can only apply to human sacrifice, and it does appear that such sacrifice was often voluntary. On the other hand, Abraham’s demanded offering of his son Isaac is referred to as a sacrifice (at least in translation), and it seems clear that Isaac has no idea of what would happen to him if Abraham proceeded. In this case, it would seem that sacrifice was not voluntary.
I think of ritualized execution primarily in the context of many thousands of prisoners being sacrificed by the Mayans, from Stephen’s post. These are prisoners, and thus almost certainly not really voluntary in the proceedings in any meaningful sense, and they are being slaughtered in a ceremony in numbers that are entirely contrary to the general idea of the rare and special sense that often accompanies a sacrifice. Sacrificing a bull was presumably considered a more special offering than a dove or even dozens of doves. I suppose for the very wealthy, it would be possible to sacrifice a larger number of bulls, but I doubt that they would have done so for thousands at one time. Actually checking this a bit, I see that I am somewhat wrong here. Numbers 7:88 has “The total number of animals for the sacrifice of the fellowship offering came to twenty-four oxen, sixty rams, sixty male goats and sixty male lambs a year old. These were the offerings for the dedication of the altar after it was anointed.” But thousands or tens of thousands? Looking further, I see that in 2 Chronicles 7:5 we have “King Solomon offered as a sacrifice 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.” That still seems rather ostentatious, but, again, these are animals not humans. Here, the only sense of sacrifice is that Solomon is voluntarily giving up the money that such a large number of animals would represent.
The Romans having prisoners crucified seems not, to me, to rise to the level of sacrifice in any meaningful sense. It is capital punishment, and punishment is certainly part of what I think of with execution, whether or not that punishment might be seen as justified in any context other than that of the person carrying out the deed. It does not even seem very ritualized; it just seems to me that it has the bland sense of a routine. From their perspective, crucifying Jesus was just one more execution.
For Jesus, from his perspective, he is presented as understanding that he will die, and calmly, voluntarily going along with that process. (Dr. Ehrman has made some explanation of differences in presentations of how Jesus actually responds during the process of being crucified, but I am mostly talking about events that lead up to being executed rather than the execution itself.) Such an acceptance of participating in events that will result in his death seems to me to very much fit the idea of sacrifice.
Does any of this seem to makes sense to anyone else, or am I just trying to spin gold out of straw?es regarding
Personally, I don’t put much stock in any of the narratives regarding Jesus’ view of his impending doom.
It’s been awhile since I read Ehrman’s take, but I recall him dealing only with the differences between the various gospel portrayals rather than Jesus’ actual state of mind.
From my perspective, Jesus probably did not expect an arrest and execution until it happened.
But, of course, I wasn’t there.
And Jesus ain’t talkin’.
CEJ said
Personally, I don’t put much stock in any of the narratives regarding Jesus’ view of his impending doom.
It’s been awhile since I read Ehrman’s take, but I recall him dealing only with the differences between the various gospel portrayals rather than Jesus’ actual state of mind.
From my perspective, Jesus probably did not expect an arrest and execution until it happened.
But, of course, I wasn’t there.
And Jesus ain’t talkin’.
Of course, we only have one source of accounts (even if it may be several works written somewhat separately and only collected together later). You are free to dismiss that in part or its entirety, but then what do you have to go on? I was careful to say “as presented.”
JAS said
CEJ said
Personally, I don’t put much stock in any of the narratives regarding Jesus’ view of his impending doom.
It’s been awhile since I read Ehrman’s take, but I recall him dealing only with the differences between the various gospel portrayals rather than Jesus’ actual state of mind.
From my perspective, Jesus probably did not expect an arrest and execution until it happened.
But, of course, I wasn’t there.
And Jesus ain’t talkin’.
Of course, we only have one source of accounts (even if it may be several works written somewhat separately and only collected together later). You are free to dismiss that in part or its entirety, but then what do you have to go on? I was careful to say “as presented.”
I always assumed it was simply vaticinium ex eventu on the gospel writers’ part.
I always assumed it was simply vaticinium ex eventu on the gospel writers’ part.
Jesus’ “sacrifice” was almost certainly a post-hoc interpretation of his fate. The historical Jesus, as a good apocalypticist, would only have had the traditional triumphalist Davidic view of the Messiah available to him. He probably went to Jerusalem expecting to be vindicated by God. The cognitive dissonance caused by Jesus being crushed by Rome is what created Christianity. No, wait! The Messiah was supposed to be crucified! That was always the plan!
Stephen said
Jesus’ “sacrifice” was almost certainly a post-hoc interpretation of his fate. The historical Jesus, as a good apocalypticist, would only have had the traditional triumphalist Davidic view of the Messiah available to him. He probably went to Jerusalem expecting to be vindicated by God. The cognitive dissonance caused by Jesus being crushed by Rome is what created Christianity. No, wait! The Messiah was supposed to be crucified! That was always the plan!
That is, perhaps at least theoretically one possibility, but then one must ask why that sudden turn of events did not simply crush his followers and the movement. I think such a simplistic explanation is just that — too simplistic. The apostles had no reason to presume the great success the movement would eventually enjoy. What drove them to proceed? Something complicated was going on at the time, perhaps not quite as related by the Bible, but certainly complicated.
Stephen said
I always assumed it was simply vaticinium ex eventu on the gospel writers’ part.Jesus’ “sacrifice” was almost certainly a post-hoc interpretation of his fate. The historical Jesus, as a good apocalypticist, would only have had the traditional triumphalist Davidic view of the Messiah available to him. He probably went to Jerusalem expecting to be vindicated by God. The cognitive dissonance caused by Jesus being crushed by Rome is what created Christianity. No, wait! The Messiah was supposed to be crucified! That was always the plan!
Yeah, I gotta go with the backfill option.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)