Child sacrifice in Phoenicia and Canaan was not uncommon in the early Iron Age. This is a fairly consensus opinion. Carthage in particular, originally a colony of Tyre, seemed to practice it. It was mentioned by the Romans during the Punic Wars, and “tophets” (originally a Biblical word) have been discovered in Carthage and its colonies …
Child sacrifice in Phoenicia and Canaan was not uncommon in the early Iron Age. This is a fairly consensus opinion. Carthage in particular, originally a colony of Tyre, seemed to practice it. It was mentioned by the Romans during the Punic Wars, and “tophets” (originally a Biblical word) have been discovered in Carthage and its colonies having human child bones and animal bones.
It is therefore quite possible, even likely, that the Israelites were surrounded by cultures practicing child sacrifice, and practiced it themselves.
Tzemah Yoreh is a Biblical Scholar who argues that Isaac is actually sacrificed in the earliest layers of the Abraham-Isaac story (e.g. the layers referring to Elohim as opposed to Yahweh).
This historicist reading adds a few more layers to the fear and trembling on offer in the story.
I do think the historicist complications are absolutely worth thinking about.
However, I do think it's fair to interrogate this story as we moderns are experiencing it today. As I was saying in the episode, it's all too easy to come up with ways of thinking about the story that make it less troubling. But in doing so, I believe we're trying to look away from questions that we ought not look away from.
(If you're a Kantian/Rawlsian/Dawkinsian, of course, you also don't want to look too closely, for all you see is "backwardness" instead of the human condition.)
And in that line, if child sacrifice was common in the region, maybe the Isaac story can be seen as showing how this god is better than the others because he doesn't make you go through with it.
The Iphigeneia parallel is also interesting, although sacrificing a daughter is certainly not apples to apples in the ancient context.
Child sacrifice in Phoenicia and Canaan was not uncommon in the early Iron Age. This is a fairly consensus opinion. Carthage in particular, originally a colony of Tyre, seemed to practice it. It was mentioned by the Romans during the Punic Wars, and “tophets” (originally a Biblical word) have been discovered in Carthage and its colonies having human child bones and animal bones.
It is therefore quite possible, even likely, that the Israelites were surrounded by cultures practicing child sacrifice, and practiced it themselves.
Tzemah Yoreh is a Biblical Scholar who argues that Isaac is actually sacrificed in the earliest layers of the Abraham-Isaac story (e.g. the layers referring to Elohim as opposed to Yahweh).
This historicist reading adds a few more layers to the fear and trembling on offer in the story.
I was thinking about this as well. The original audience probably wasn't asking "What sort of god could demand something like this?"
Right, Kronos/Saturn did not preserve his own children, why would he feel the need to preserve yours.
I do think the historicist complications are absolutely worth thinking about.
However, I do think it's fair to interrogate this story as we moderns are experiencing it today. As I was saying in the episode, it's all too easy to come up with ways of thinking about the story that make it less troubling. But in doing so, I believe we're trying to look away from questions that we ought not look away from.
(If you're a Kantian/Rawlsian/Dawkinsian, of course, you also don't want to look too closely, for all you see is "backwardness" instead of the human condition.)
I don’t know. I was suggesting that child sacrifice is pretty troubling.
Right, but under the assumption of moral progress, right?
And in that line, if child sacrifice was common in the region, maybe the Isaac story can be seen as showing how this god is better than the others because he doesn't make you go through with it.
The Iphigeneia parallel is also interesting, although sacrificing a daughter is certainly not apples to apples in the ancient context.