In the January/February 2000 issue of TSR (), the first article is entitled, "A Legacy of Human Sacrifice?" The introduction seeks to establish two matters: (1) that animal sacrifices to gods were a common practice. (2) that although some Biblical writers condemned the practice of human sacrifice it was nevertheless practiced.
Both points are uncontroversial and can readily be agreed upon, although it is worthwhile to emphasize that in the instances of those who practiced it, which Till cited (Psalm 106:36,37; 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 17:17), it was respectively "condemned, "denounced," or a matter of God's judgment. This much cannot be denied as it is (1) Till's own assessment contained in the article and (2) borne out by the Biblical text itself. Let no one therefore consider those instances as being done with approval or in accordance with the Israelite nation or their God.
Moving on, the article made the following claim: "This is not to say that human sacrifice was uniformly condemned in the Bible, because there are some passages that seemed to imply acceptance of the practice." Now what are those passages? The first offered was Genesis 22, where Abraham was commanded by God to take his son Isaac and "offer him there as a burnt offering." Abraham did as instructed, but as he raised the knife to slay his son, the angel of the LORD stopped him, saying: "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me." A ram was then provided and offered as a sacrifice instead of Isaac.
Now from this account Till saw an implicit acceptance of human sacrifice. Here is how he reasoned to this conclusion: "Such a story as this could have been told only in a culture in which human sacrifice was thought to be an appropriate homage to one's god, so even if Abraham was not an actual historical person, the existence of this legend in Israelite culture would indicate that the idea of human sacrifices was not at all repugnant at the time."
The conclusion he drew above is a non sequitur, because it does not necessarily follow that the events could have happened only in a culture where human sacrifice was acceptable and not repugnant. The context of the account is the testing of Abraham's faith. Now which would have been the greater test of that faith? (1) The acceptable and nonrepugnant sacrifice of Abraham's son Isaac? (2) The unacceptable and repugnant sacrifice of Abraham's son, Isaac?
Surely the greater test is (2), since it includes whatever testing element is in (1) as well as the extra trial that what Abraham was being instructed to do would be to him, both unacceptable and repugnant.
Do not be mistaken, I am not thus arguing that because (2) would most surely have been the greater test that it must be the true scenario, which would be to commit the same logical fallacy of non sequitur that Till has committed, but what I am arguing is that there is at least as much a case for (2) as there is for (1), i. e., the story could have been at least as likely to be told in a culture in which human sacrifice was both unacceptable and repugnant, as in one in which it was acceptable and nonrepugnant. Now if Till disagrees let him explain the reasons why (2) is not at least as possible a scenario as (1) and if he is unable to do that then let him withdraw his non sequitur argument that Genesis 22 implicitly teaches human sacrifice as acceptable and nonrepugnant.
Before we move on to his next example, let us refresh our minds as to the situation now present before us: Till has pointed to instances where human sacrifices were practiced but not condoned. He has then presented us with an example which should be discounted if he (1) cannot show how his argument did not commit the fallacy of non sequitur, (2) cannot explain why his scenario is to be given greater consideration than the at least equally valid alternative.
We now move on to his next [first, if the above warrants discounting] example of the Bible implicitly teaching human sacrifice as acceptable and nonrepugnant. That is the case of Jephthah's daughter as recorded in Judges 11. Here are Till's comments:
That it wasn't a repugnant concept is shown by an actual case of human sacrifice recorded in Judges 11. Jephthah had been called to judge Israel in a time of conflict with the Ammonites. Before going into battle, the "spirit of Yahweh" came upon Jephthah, who made a vow that if Yahweh "will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be Yahweh's to be offered up by me as a burnt offering" (vs:30-31). Jephthah inflicted a "massive defeat" (v:33) on the Ammonites, and upon his return home, he was met by his daughter, his only child, who came out of the house dancing with timbrels (v:34). Upon seeing her, Jephthah tore his clothes in despair and told his daughter about the vow. As the story was told, her reaction was that a vow was a vow and had to be kept, so after she was given two months to "bewail her virginity" (v:38), Jephthah "did with her according to the vow he had made" (v:39).
Now we could engage in a protracted debate on the text as to what the actual vow was, and if that vow was to be sacrificed whether it was actually carried out or not, but Till knows all those arguments and would like for nothing more to try and knock them down, hence arguing such, even though there is a good case there, is not the most productive course of action in the context of the article he has written. What is more productive is to concede for the sake of argument that in the Judges 11 account we have a case of actual human sacrifice, the result of a hasty vow made by Jephthah, which, once made, had to be and was carried out. Now the question is, how does this give Till a case for human sacrifice being generally acceptable in the Israelite culture? The answer is it doesn't. Where is approval of either the vow or the act given by God or of the Israelite people? It is not, indeed the taking of human life is categorically prohibited in the Law given to the people by Moses. That is what the culture believed and taught, that to take a human life was murder. How would one reconcile a general practice of human sacrifice (based on one isolated case) in light of that Law. If, as Till would have us believe human sacrifice was generally accepted and certainly not repugnant then where are the instructions in the Law on how to perform them, and the procedure to be followed? It is not there, or at least not that I can see. Perhaps Till can show us.
Till mentioned that Jephthah is named as one of the great heroes of faith in Hebrews 11, and that is correct, but does that fact mean that Jephthah's act was necessarily approved? No, it does not, unless one is going to consistently apply that criterion to the acts of the others, such as Noah's drunkenness, Abraham's and Isaac's half-lies, Moses' killing of the Egyptian, the harlotry of Rahab, Samson's frailty with women, and David's adultery with Bathsheba and killing of Uriah. All these, with their acts, are listed in the Hebrews 11 chapter of the heroes of faith, but we do not argue that those acts were therefore approved of by God, so why should we with Jephthah? No, we can grant Farrell Till (for the sake of argument) his case of Jephthah without coming anywhere near giving him a case for seriously proposing from it a culture which accepted and did not find repugnant the practice of human sacrifice. I put it to you that such an idea is but the invention of Farrell Till's imagination without any sound basis in the Scriptures or the culture of the people of Israel under the God Yahweh.
Till's final example is that of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself, but again it is fallacious argumentation to use that as an example of a legacy of human sacrifice since the Bible implicitly sets out Jesus' voluntary sacrifice for the salvation of man as unique. Now how can one argue from a unique case to a general practice. Well, one can't, unless they want to argue fallaciously and that is all we have in Till's arguments, fallacious reasoning, first arguing from a non sequitur, secondly arguing from one possible case of actual sacrifice which went against the Law and received no textual approval from God and finally an argument from a unique case to a general practice.
There is no legacy of approved human sacrifice in the Bible. It exists but in the mind of people like Farrell Till, whose objective is to cast every aspersion on the Bible that he can find, or more accurately in this case contrive, something which does his cause no good, especially when the contrived arguments are so transparent. I look forward to his reply.
(Matt Bell, 40 Lugton Court, Irvine, Ayrshire, Scotland
KA12 8ER, United Kingdom; e-mail, mbkbell@aapi.co.uk)
