HUMAN SACRIFICE, ANIMAL SACRIFICE

POLARIS

This whole question is the subject of a hidden reality which is the true knowledge of what a sacrifice is and what it is used for. One aspect of this hidden reality involves the fact that what is commonly called sacrifice is in reality two radically different things.

The Two Approaches to Sacrifice

First, we should clarify our terms. The English word "sacrifice" is derived from the Latin, sacra-ficium, which literally means "something which has been made sacred," or "something which has been separated out from the profane." The Anglo-Saxons had a whole nomenclature of "sacrifice" also, but most or all of them would only confirm what seems to have been a common Indo-European attitude toward the practice of sacrifice, i.e. that it was a holy gift to a god and that it was at the same time a gift in return to the populace worshipping (i.e. honoring) that god. Examples will make this concept clear. Radically different from this conception is that held among other peoples, notably the ancient Hebrews and Aztecs (just to name two). For them "sacrifice" was exclusive payment to a god for favors granted or as a mode for expiating sin. This latter concept has come to dominate our thoughts when we think of sacrifice today. We think of nubile virgins being offered up to the Aztec Sun-God, or to the Fire-Goddess Pele in Hawaii. To us now that seems a superstitious waste -- which it might well be. The point is that in European culture such a concept was unknown until the introduction of Christianity, and with it, the Old Testament lore of the ancient Hebrews.

Because the study of sacrifice is an extremely complex one, even within a given culture, I will limit myself to discussions of the two kinds of sacrifice most in question right now -- animal and human. I will concentrate on the forms of sacrifice as practiced by the pre Christian Germanic peoples from the most ancient times to 600-1100 CE, depending on the region in question.

In the old Germanic conceptual universe, a sacrifice, or more simply a gift to the gods came in two main forms. First there were the animal gifts. Certain animals were thought to embody the essences of certain gods and goddesses, e.g. the swine of Freyr and Freyja, the goat of Thorr, the horse of Odhinn. These animal would be slaughtered by priests in a ceremonial setting, and the meat from the animals would then be used in a ceremonial meal. In this way the god is able to commune with his folk, and they with him. This is not only a gift to the god's being, but simultaneously from that being. It might also be pointed out that the priests also take great care in making the death of the animal as painless as possible. One old Norse term for sacrifice is soa, which literally means "to cause to go to sleep," the origin of our euphemism "to put to sleep." This is important because the animal embodies the god, which is loved by the folk, and thus they would not want to cause it pain. The traditional Indo-European animal sacrifice is in reality a sacramental meal in which the gods and humans symbolically commune. It is worth pointing out that certain parts of the animal are given up to the god in a fashion similar to that found among the Hebrews -- but these would only be the parts of the animal that were more or less useless to humans -- the lower legs or heads.

Another form of sacrifice was the giving of a human being. Generally only two gods, Tyr and Odhinn seemed to have been the recipients of human sacrifice -- these were the two most sovereign gods. Tyr is the god of law and justice, while Odhinn is the god of magic, death and wisdom. But far from sacrificing the finest the tribes had to offer, the only persons subjected to being victims of sacrifice were criminals and prisoners of war. The Germanic peoples were notorious for taking no prisoners in war. The religious reason for this is that to them war could be a sacred ritual in which all those on the other side would be dedicated to the gods (Tyr and Odhinn) as ritual sacrifices even before the battle began. So any prisoners captured would simply have to be taken to the groves sacred to the gods to be more ceremonially dispatched. Criminals were also often made the victims of human sacrifice. The rationale behind this is that the criminal has violated the natural balance of the cosmos by his actions, and as such forfeits his life to rebalance the wrong. Both the military enemy and the criminal are really considered in the same category -- as breakers of the peace -- who must repay the wronged god or goddess with their lives.

One other kind of human sacrifice, more seldom encountered for obvious reasons, is the sacrifice of the king. If things were to go especially bad for a kingdom, for example the crops failed repeatedly, or the frontiers were continually unsafe from invasion, the semi-divine king, who was known to some of the Germanic as well as other Indo-European groups, would more or less voluntarily offer himself as a victim of sacrifice in order to rebalance the cosmic order in favor of his people.

If we compare the general Indo-European attitudes toward sacrifice and the "choice of a human sacrifice," I think we will see that they are almost exactly the same as those expressed by Anton LaVey in that section of the "Book of Lucifer" (The Satanic Bible). LaVey essentially says that those who have wrongfully harmed you to an extreme degree are the prime candidates for "human sacrifice" -- through magical, not physical means. In this he is right in line, not only with the traditional ancient thoughts on sacrifice, but also with the philosophical proponents of the civil death penalty. In the matter of the sacrifice of the god-form in animal shape, LaVey shows no desire to understand this. He seems righteously indignant over the thought of sacrificing animals or children for any purpose, as he holds them to be the purest expression of the god-head of carnal existence -- as he conceives it. (Egan's note: It must be pointed out that Mister LaVey was no vegetarian! Ask him where his "filet mignon" comes from, and he'll tell you, "the supermarket." Pay no heed to the steer that was essentially sacrificed for his dinner table! Deliberate killing of any kind can be equally construed, in reality, as a sacrifice to the god-head of the slayer! -- Sorry, if I offend you "city dwellers" out there! -D.E.)

But what about the model of sacrifice as portrayed in the lurid accounts of "Satanists"? Where could they have come from if the pagans of Europe did not indeed practice anything like it? The answer is rather simple, but it is one that makes the establishment quite uncomfortable.

Any reading of the so-called Old Testament, or the Torah of the Jews will show a highly developed cult of not only animal but also of human sacrifice. The ancient Hebrews did not share in a convivial meal with their god or gods, but rather they offered the animal completely to him. Not only is this attested in the Old Testament, but rules and regulations concerning its practice make up whole parts of the books of Leviticus and Numbers. These books are veritable charnel houses with instructions to make burnt offerings of massive numbers of animals of various kinds. Yahweh must have grown very fat from the glut of burnt flesh the Temple priests sent his way in those years.

Although the Jews must have given up the regular practice of human sacrifice at some time, their holy books still have some references to it. The most famous case is the little practical joke Yahweh played on Abraham -- where he tells Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, but stops him at the last minute (Genesis 22). Now this is actually a representation of the fairly common Semitic practice of the "sacrifice of the first fruit" which was at one time extended even to human offspring. But not to leave the girls out: There is also the story of Jephthah (Judges 11) who vowed to offer as a burnt offering to God "whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of (his) house to meet (him)," if God would grant him victory in the war against the "sons of Ammon." Well, after his victory, the first thing that came out of his house to meet him was his only daughter "with timbrels and dances." It seems Jephthah was a better general than he was a logician -- what did he think would be coming out of his house a goat? Anyway, Jephthah made good on his vow to sacrifice his only, and still virgin daughter.

These references may be thought to be only isolated cased used to spice up the Biblical narrative. But such is not really the case. It is well known that all of the Semitic peoples practiced human sacrifice of the first fruit of the womb at one time or another. The Hebrews included. It is still customary to have to "buy back" the first born son from God. This is still done in a ceremony called the pidyon ha-ben-- "redemption of the first-son." This originally referred to a human sacrifice, but was later changed to dedicating the son to "temple service." Now the kid can be bought back with a few shekels paid to the kohen!

It was also an ancient Semitic belief that sin could be atoned for through the shedding of blood. Thus animal sacrifice was used to "purify" one 5 self of sin. This is the essential liturgical drama at the root of the myth of Jesus as seen from a Judaic perspective.

When we look back on all this evidence, there is a high degree of confusion possible. The confusion comes about simply because the modern "civilized" European might generally still hold to many of his ancestors ideas about the appropriateness of sacrifice," under what ever name. But at the same time this "civilized" man has been taught that which is overtly and historically heathen is to be rejected as somehow an abomination. Add to this quandary the fact that the old Hebrew patterns of sacrifice were generally ignorantly projected by Christians onto historical forms of pre-Christian paganism in Europe. The simple-minded Christian just might have thought that all forms of pre-Christian cult must have been just like the pre-Christian Hebrew cult, and thus Old Testament practices were wrongly ascribed to European pagans. We know that this method of Christian historicizing was quite common.

Also quite common was the tendency for Christian writers to take on Roman depictions of "paradoxical and degraded" cults -- as Tacitus described the Jewish cult -- and simply copy them, now ascribing to pagans, heretics (including Jews), or devil worshipers the practices formerly (accurately) attributed to the Jews and/or Christians. In this way stories of heinous forms of sacrifice, as practiced in the Middle East, were first ascribed to medieval heretics, and have eventually found their way into modern descriptions on sensationalistic and propagandistic television programs.

The cruel irony in all this is that the ideology "guilty" (if any can be so described here) of all the apparently unacceptable beliefs is never identified or assailed, while the ideology with the balanced and healthy view has become the target of various levels of righteous indignation. It should not be taken that I am here criticizing the rights of various cults to practice whatever form of sacrifice they wish to, or that historical forms of various religions are being vilified wantonly. It is merely a matter of seeking and finding, using rational and historical means of investigation, the sources of the various patterns we encounter and laying them at the proper doorstep.¶