428 FISH NOT IN SACRIFICE OR AUGURY 
in the Bible. On New Year’s Day (about mid-September), 
when in the fulness of time God will judge mankind, it was the 
custom (based on Micah vii., “‘ Thou wilt cast all their sins into 
the sea’’) to assemble near some lake or stream. If goodly 
numbers of fish were spied, the omen of the expiation of human 
sins was accepted. Forthwith the crowd jumped for joy, and 
shed their garments, likewise their sins, on to the fishes, who 
swam away, heavily laden. 
Religious customs in Israel and Assyria both correspond and 
differ. Thus the sacrifices of fish found in Assyria are absent 
in Israel, although we read passim of offerings of domestic 
animals, of wine, of pigeons, and of doves. The former (despite 
Sayce and Jastrow) were guiltless of human sacrifices, the 
latter “sacrificed their sons and their daughters” (even) 
“unto demons.”’ 1 
From the words of Exod. xiii. 2, and Numbers xviii. 15 f., 
Mr. Campbell Thompson holds that the God of Israel plainly 
regarded the firstborn of men and the firstlings of animals as 
his own. The Israelites certainly offered up some of their 
children, generally the firstborn (cf. Isaac), either as a tribute 
regularly due to their Deity or to appease his anger at times 
of calamity or danger.2 Other writers disavow a general 
sacrificing of the firstborn as part of the religion of Israel; 
they attribute individual instances occurring towards the 
close of the monarchy to the influence of surrounding 
nations. 
I have come across no counterpart to the Babylonian or 
Roman custom of taking auguries or making oracular responses 
from the movements, etc., of fish. If the Hebrews apparently 
lacked some modes of divining which were employed by the 
Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc., such as observation of the flight 
and cries of birds, the movements of fish, the inspection of the 
entrails of animals (for it was a King of Babylon, not of Israel, 
1 Psalm cvi. 36 ff. 
2 Semitic Magic, 1908. 
3 See Bennett, Exodus, p. 178, where he cites Baentsch, and E. Meyer. 
Other writers, who admit the sacrifice, deduce its cause from some very early 
rite by which the bride was deflowered by some god or his representatives, the 
Holy Men: hence what the deity had given, the deity claimed. See inva, 
P: 435, . 2, where this view is brought out. 
