"King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
This forum primarily exists to discuss a secret war between Q and an entity which Q refers to as "them". We are left with the obvious question: who is "them"?
Wild speculation on the identity of "them" (sometimes referred to as "The Cabal") pervade the community of followers of Q. Q's statements about "them" suggest that "them" is a secret and old (how old?) group identifiable by several practices, one of which being various forms of child sacrifice (rape, cannibalism, etc.). Various contradictory speculations about "them", abound, including of the age of "them". We find suggestions that (1) "them" is fairly recent in history, perhaps a banking cabal from the last few centuries, or (2) that "them" is older, perhaps being integrated into the Catholic Church from Roman times, or (3) that "them" is even older still. Q is vague on this point.
On the nature of time and human culture:
-
Do ancient organizations live now?: One question I would like the reader to consider: we know that there were terrible societies/organization/religions/practices in ancient times (BCE), but what happened to them? Did they just "die out"? Can we be sure that they all "died out"? If so, how would you be so sure?
-
Humans behavior is cultural: I would like to suggest that people who assume that such ancient terrible practices died out are making an unwarranted assumption about the nature of time and human beings. Most animals largely operate on instinct, but humans are different: humans learn. The behavior of humans is largely due to their learned practices, not their inherent biology (which is quite similar across the world, despite superficial appearances). Therefore, to best predict the behavior of humans, we should look at what they have learned; over the scale of large numbers of people, this is called their culture.
-
Cultural practices are largely timeless: In other words, when we look at the past and how people behaved, if we want to know if people still behave that way, we should not look at how much calendar time has passed, we should instead look at if they retain the same culture. Culture can change but it often stabilizes and then does not change at all, and then changes suddenly in a cultural discontinuity.
-
Therefore cultural time is fundamentally different from calendar time: I therefore suggest that measuring time in boundaries of cultural discontinuities is a much better way to make a map of human behavior than just looking at what year it was then and what year it is now.
An example: in the 1937 the Japanese government conducted a terrible rape of the city of Nanjing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre and around 1960 the Chinese government conducted the "Great Leap Forward" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward . Each action killed many innocent people.
-
We may conclude that the Japanese and Chinese governments are therefore bad. Why then would we today be allies of the Japanese and not of the Chinese?
-
Well the Japanese government underwent a cultural discontinuity, they lost WWII, whereas the Chinese government did not, they are still the same Chinese Communist Party as they were then. As we can see, even though similar amounts of calendar time has passed, in the government of China cultural time has not passed, whereas in the government of Japan, it has.
Conjecturing that such a terrible organization as the "them" of which Q speaks could arise today may seem implausible, and so many doubt it. But we know for a fact from historical record that many such terrible practices were part of the cultures of the long calendar-time past. Could "them" be an ancient culture for which still lives in ancient cultural-time? For which culture-time has not passed?
I suggest for your consideration the writings of a real researcher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Stavrakopoulou : "Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. The main focus of her research is on the Hebrew Bible, and on Israelite and Judahite history and religion." In particular, I think it is important to note that "Stavrakopoulou was brought up in no particular religion and is a self-described atheist." In other words, her scholarship is not inclined to be distorted by identifying personally with the subject matter.
I think this work of hers is of particular relevance:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110899641/html
The Hebrew Bible portrays King Manasseh and child sacrifice as the most reprehensible person and the most objectionable practice within the story of 'Israel'. This monograph suggests that historically, neither were as deviant as the Hebrew Bible appears to insist. Through careful historical reconstruction, it is argued that Manasseh was one of Judah's most successful monarchs, and child sacrifice played a central role in ancient Judahite religious practice. The biblical writers, motivated by ideological concerns, have thus deliberately distorted the truth about Manasseh and child sacrifice.
Further, from the book:
Indeed, a closer examination of the Hebrew Bible suggests that the offering of the firstborn to YHWH may well have included the sacrifice of human babies along with the offering of animals and crops. In spite of these text, the debate appears to have come full circle within modern scholarship with the relatively recent defence of the biblical concept of "Molek" as a foreign god of child sacrifice. However, contrary to this view, this study will argue that the identification of child sacrifice as a foreign element within Judahite religious practice is based on the distortion of the historical reality of child sacrifice within the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it will be argued that the academic acceptance of this biblical distortion as a historical probability reflects a persistent and unself-critical ideological bias within modern scholarship. Unlike most other areas of academic enquiry, the subject of child sacrifice is particularly susceptible to misrepresentation within modern scholarship because of its sensitive nature. The historical reality of child sacrifice in ancient (and indeed modern) civilizations is an unpleasant reality, particularly, as van der Horst comments, if such a practice is attested within a culture that has played some role in the formation of one's personal world-view. This may well account in part of the apparent reluctance within biblical scholarship to apply the perspectives of ideological criticism to the examination of the subject of child sacrifice and the Hebrew Bible. As Bergmann suggests:
"We have a particular difficultly in understanding this phenomenon because the Judeo-Christian tradition has accustomed us to regard God as an ego-ideal. Therefore how could God tolerate human sacrifices?"
As observed above, ideological criticism suggest that ideology generally exists within a dynamic context of opposition. In seeking to distinguish between the biblical portrayal of child sacrifice and the historical reality of this practice, this discussion will argue that the biblical material concerning child sacrifice is generally opposed o the historical reality that children were sacrificed to Yhwh, and that an "ideology of separateness" governs the biblical insistence that child sacrifice was a Canaanite practice. Moreover, it will be argued that child sacrifice played an important role within the royal Judahite cult, and that "Molek" is best understood as a biblical character making the historical reality of the sacrifice of children to Yhwh.
How did you get that from what I said? I said nothing like that. I am talking about Today's Christian dogma.
The modern day version has some serious issues. Who Jesus was, what he said, what he did, why he did it are all questions worth looking into. There is far more evidence that gives potential answers to those questions than are found in the small version you believe in, and all it's apparent fuckery.
They are based on thirty years of study on the topic. If you would like me to dig in and provide evidence, ask specific questions.
Do you agree the Priest Class wrote the books? If not, then which class of people did? Who had the training to write? Who had the ability to push their work into the public sphere and create the religion? Do you think some random shmuck could do that? Of course not. That is not how society works. You have to be near the top to be heard. And that's today. It was far worse with respect to the allowed actions by the social hierarchy at the time.
Did the Priest Class ever have issues with the Kings? Sure, of course. That doesn't mean they didn't sit at the top of society. For the most part the Priest Class of every ancient society was beyond the reach of the King. The real Rulers of society generally sit behind the scenes creating beliefs, then as today. Sometimes the King decides otherwise. That doesn't change the fundamental social structure.
Who told you that story?
Even if it is exactly true as told, why do you think that means he wasn't an agent, controlled opposition? Do you honestly believe the PTB care about their agents? They throw their own agents under the bus all the time, it's a part of their religion.
Thanks for your measured replies and insightful questions. May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs? Mine remain firmly Christian, but I'm open to all challenges, scholarly research, and cordial debate.
Agree the Priest Class wrote the Biblical books and that there has been some drift in certain texts over the centuries. A pivotal question is indeed the trustworthiness of our current canon, both OT and NT. What are your favorite references on this topic?
Prompted by recent commentary by Clif High on the Elohim that I suspect most Christians would find heretical, I've been doing some research into the work of Zecharia Sitchin, Mauro Biglino, and now Francesca Stavrakopoulou. I find counters by Michael Heiser helpful in defense of more classic Christian beliefs: https://www.sitchiniswrong.com/ and https://drmsh.com/ , but Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.
I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.
Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.
I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).
I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.
As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."
My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.
I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.
As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.
I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent on external sources ("The Lord your God", "Jesus Christ", "Allah" (another name for the Canaanite diety El), or "The Scientific Experts" take your pick). In the case of the Abrahams, they leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (or Allah and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.
I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in defiance of The Source of All Things.
Really appreciate your open, informative, and detailed reply.
I remain surprised at how many people are so reluctant to live with uncertainty that they flock to those who claim to have "the answers" and are very quick to criticize those who express doubt, recognize subtle flaws, and really think through and weigh possibilities.
Prayers and well wishes for success in your pursuit of ultimate truth.