Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

PHOENICIA

(Gk. Phoinikē)

The Tophet or “Precinct of Tanit” at Carthage, burial ground for the victims of the rite of
child sacrifice. Excavation of square CT 6 shows urns and stelae in situ
(Photograph by Gradon Wood, ASOR Punic Project;
copyright President and Fellows of Harvard College for the Semitic Museum)

The name by which the Greeks and Romans called ancient Canaan, the coastal region of southern Syria-Lebanon-Israel. Extending roughly from the city of Arwad (Aradus) in the north to Ascalon in the south, the region was inhabited in antiquity by a Northwest Semitic people calling themselves Canaanites or Pon(n)im, the origin of the name Phoenicia(n). In the strictest and narrowest sense, as used by the Phoenicians themselves, Canaan denoted this coastal region alone, dominated politically and culturally in the 1st millennium b.c. by the city-states of Tyre and Sidon.

Phoenician overseas expansion and colonization in the western Mediterranean, undertaken as early as ca. 1200 by the Tyrians and Sidonians, resulted in the emergence of a Greater Phoenicia, comprising two subregions, Phoenicia proper, the historical homeland; and Western Phoenicia. Western Phoenicia comprised the coastal regions of North Africa (from Cyrenaica to Western Morocco), southern and southwestern Spain, northwestern and western Sicily, as well as the islands of Malta, Gozo, Sardinia, Majorca, and Minorca. Most important of the Western Phoenician states was Carthage in Tunisia, founded in 825 or 814 by Tyre. By ca. 500 Carthage had become the dominant political and cultural center of the Western Phoenicians, and in a real sense it supplanted Tyre in importance in the Classical period. At its height, Carthage rivaled Greece and Rome, and Western Phoenician (called Punic, so to differentiate it from Phoenician) was a world-class language as significant as Greek and Latin. Although Carthage was defeated and destroyed by Rome in 146, Western Phoenician language, religion, and culture continued to flourish in Africa and elsewhere well into the 5th century c.e. In this period the Punic language counted among its native speakers the Roman emperor Septimius Severus, the poet Appuleius, and the church father Augustine.

People and Language

Inasmuch as the cities of Tyre and Sidon held hegemony over Eastern and Western Phoenicia throughout the 1st millennium, “Tyrian” and “Sidonian,” used as cultural terms, came also to be functionally equivalent to “Phoenician.” Indeed, already in the 9th century the dialect of Tyre and Sidon had been accepted by all Phoenicians as a standard literary language; the language of Western Phoenicia (Punic) is merely a subdialect of this language.

In broader historical perspective, the Phoenicians were one of the several peoples of the ethno-linguistic “Canaanite” subgroup of the Semitic peoples, to which belonged Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites. Although politically distinct at an early period, these peoples traced historical descent from a common culture, speaking closely related languages and possessing related cultural and religious traditions and institutions. Thus, in the late Classical period, the Phoenicians themselves traced their origins to an ancestor named Khna (“Canaan”), said by them to have been the brother of Isirilos (“Israel”). This lineage indicates awareness of an historical and cultural bond to the Israelites.

Religion

Gods

The religion of the Phoenicians was a conservative expression of the ancient religion of Canaan, preserving forms, traditions, and practices that Israelite religion had long rejected and abolished. Phoenician religion remained polytheistic and iconic and, to the end, tolerant and accommodating of diversity. Possessing no central or coherent doctrine or “truth,” it was always ready to absorb the gods and practices of other religions, including those of the Israelites.

The Phoenicians possessed numerous words for “god(s)” or “goddess(es),” the most common being ilim, used for “god,” “goddess,” and “gods.” A god was normally addressed and referred to by the title “Lord” (adum) and a goddess by “Lady” (ribbot or adot) or “Our Lady” (ribbaton). Two common epithets of a god or goddess were “holy” (qiddis) and “powerful, great” (iddir).

The gods of the Phoenicians were organized in the Pantheon in three orders, in the manner of earlier Canaanite religion: the High Gods, largely otiose; the active gods, those of common worship; and the Infernal Gods. Nothing of the rich mythology of the High Gods other than their names and titles survives: Il, Creator of Earth (chief of the gods), Semes (sun-goddess), Yerah (moon-god), Khusor (artisan-god, in his female form Khusart identified in late Classical antiquity with the Israelite “goddess” Turo, the Torah), and Balsamem (lord of the heavens, Uranos). Curiously, Il’s consort, the goddess Ashirat, is never mentioned in Phoenician religion of the 1st millennium.

For the active gods, the most prominent were Baal, Baalhammun, Esmun (Baal Sidon, “proprietary god of Sidon,” identified with Greek Asklepios), Milqart (Baal Sor, “proprietary god of Tyre”), Milkastart (god of the city of Hammun, near Tyre), Meskar, Osiris (the Egyptian god), Rasap, and Sikkun. Most important of the female gods was Astarte, patron deity of the kings and queens of Sidon, who were her priests. Other prominent goddesses were Anat, Isis (the Egyptian goddess), and Tinnit. Ruling the netherworld were the god Nergal and the goddess Hawwit, called Amma, “Mother.”

Major gods, like Baal or Astarte, had their cults in many cities and were specified, e.g., as “Baal/Astarte (who is) in Tyre” or “Baal/Astarte of Tyre.” As held in the theology of the pre-Persian period, the gods resided in their cities, in the temple built for them, and were the divine proprietors of the cities and peoples they ruled. Thus, Milqart was “proprietor of Tyre” (Baal Sor) and Esmun “proprietor of Sidon” (Baal Sidon). The inhabitants of a city understood themselves to be in the custodial care of their proprietary gods and under their protection. An altogether similar relationship existed between a god and a family, especially a ruling family or royal dynasty.

In the Persian period, a new theology emerged which held that the gods permanently resided not in their cities but “in the Great Heavens.” Thus, in the Roman period, we find the fellowship of the god Meskar praying to the god “facing Heaven.”

Another theological innovation, related to the new theology of heaven, appeared in the late period: the duality of god. This belief held that a god (ilim) was actually two gods (allonim), the first (called by his simple name) being his heavenly manifestation, the other (called by his name prefixed by the word malʾak) being his earthly manifestation. For instance, Milkastart and Malʾak-Milkastart designate the same god, yet at the same time, discrete gods: one as two or two in one, a celestial form and a terrestrial form. In historical perspective we have here the evolution of the concept of the divine messenger (malʾak): in the 2nd millennium, in early Canaanite mythology, every major god had a messenger or two to do his bidding; in the 1st millennium, in Phoenician religion, a god was his own messenger, assuming that role and appropriate form, when among humans.

Temple

A Phoenician temple was the “house of a god/goddess” (bet ilim), also called simply a “house” (bet); thus, Baal’s temple was “Baal’s house” (bet Baal). The temple, a complex consisting of the “house of the god” and a courtyard (haser), was situated upon a hill, called “the mountain of the gods,” inside a large protected area or precinct, surrounded by a wall or fence. The inauguration of a new temple was known as the day when “the god entered the sacntuary,” i.e., when the statue of the god/goddess was brought into the temple; it was at this time that the sacred implements for the cult were “given over to the priests” by the municipal officials “in charge of temples.”

Many kinds of temple edifices existed, but the most common form was that built by Phoenician (Tyrian) architects for the god of Israel in the time of Solomon. It was a three-room structure, consisting of an anteroom or vestibule; a main sanctuary; and, in the rear, a small private room or holy of holies, containing the statue of the god/goddess and the divan upon which the god/goddess slept.

Associated with the temple, either an annex or separate structure, was the “depository,” in which were stored images, statues, altars, and other such furniture and equipment required by the priests; the depository had its own administrator. Included was the temple treasury, from which expenses were paid, such as the salaries of the priests and other hired personnel, as well as ransoms to secure the release of citizens from imprisonment and arrest in neighboring cities.

Temple Personnel

The Phoenician temple had a large staff, consisting of religious and lay personnel. Four classes of priests are known: (1) the kuhen, the principal class of priest, headed by the “Chief of Priests”; a “priestess” served primarily female deities, like Astarte; (2) the kumir, whose function is not known; (3) the “watch-priest” (sufe); and (4) the “sacrifical priest” (zabah), charged with administering the rite of the “Surrender of the Firstborn,” i.e., the cult of infant sacrifice. Assisting the consecrated priests was an order of lay priests called “helpers” (ʿozrim), headed by the “Prefect of Helpers.” Also attached to the cult was the “man of the god/goddess” (is ilim), a cultic prophet, known also in Israelite religion (ʾîš hāʾĕlōhîm); nothing substantive is known of the role of this cultic functionary.

The professional staff of the temple were assisted by a large staff of “service personnel,” headed by a lay person called the “Head of the Service Personnel.” Many of this staff were salaried employees, among them young boys (naʿarim) and young women (ʿalamut), as well as technical service people (professional scribes, barbers, bakers, singers), artisans (architects and builders), and workers. The latter appear to have been members of a special “labor force” who were in the charge of “taskmasters.”

Daily Sacred Liturgy

The divine service (lit., “sacred work”) resembled to some degree that performed in the Egyptian temple. At dawn, a specialized priest called the “Awakener of the Gods” entered the holy of holies and bade the sleeping god/goddess (i.e., the statue lying on its divan) to awaken (cf. 1 Kgs. 18:27). (This same act was performed in the Jerusalem temple by levitical priests called the “Awakeners” (mĕʿôrĕrîm), who stood on a platform in front of the holy of holies; the practice and priesthood were abolished by John Hyrcanus.) Once roused, the statue of the god/goddess underwent an elaborate divine toilette. After being shaved, washed, and dressed, the statue was served freshly baked “loaves of bread”; these are the so-called “shewbread” or “loaves of the presence [properly, ‘placed before God’]” of the Israelite temple.

Sacrifice

Sacrifice to the gods at the temple was strictly controlled by public and religious law administered by a municipal bureau called the “Thirty men in charge of (Sacrificial) Prices.” The charge for every animal available to purchase for sacrifice at the temple, specification of what parts of the animal belonged to the person sacrificing and to the priest, proper practice required of the priests and the public, including fines to be exacted for violations all were published in a book kept by the Thirty and in condensed form in a tariff (lit., “sales document”) posted at the temple. As in Israelite practice, sacrifices were of two basic kinds: the “whole burnt offering” and the cereal offering. Animals offered on the altar included bovines, sheep and goats, fowl, wild game; also offered were oil, fat, and milk.

Three major seasonal public or communal sacrifices were observed: the periodic sacrifice of an ox; a lamb at plowing time; and a lamb at harvest time. In addition, there were the daily sacrifice and the monthly sacrifice on the new moon and the full moon. The latter were offered to ensure the welfare of the royal family and one’s own family.

Child Sacrifice

Child sacrifice was an essential element of Phoenician religion. Although this ancient rite seems to have been obsolete in the Phoenician motherland, it continued to be practiced vigorously by the Western Phoenicians well into the Late Roman period. Two related rites were connected with the sacrifice: the “Vow in Distress,” entailing the immolation of a child in fulfillment of a vow made to obtain divine intervention to overcome a personal or national difficulty; and the “Surrender of the Firstborn/Firstling,” the tendering of the firstborn son of one’s own flesh to the god(s), presumably as an expression of obedience.

The sacrifice itself was called “a molk-offering of a human being.” The human victim was called an izrim, “one snatched away before one’s time at the age of a few days”; another term for the victim was “one brought to the god(s).” The qualification that the child be of the sacrificer’s own flesh was an assurance of compliance with strict orthopraxis, which disallowed the substitution of the child of a slave for one’s own to circumvent the law.

The immolation was performed by a specialized class of priest called the “Sacrificer” (zabbah). The cremated remains were placed in urns, which were deposited in a large open-air precinct (perhaps called the “sacred field”); the sites were marked by small stelae inscribed with religious symbols and the formula of presentation containing the name of the person(s) who made the sacrifice.

The Phoenicians shrouded child sacrifice in euphemisms in order to deny its horrific character. Until the Roman period, the word “sacrifice” (zaboh) was never used in connection with the rite; rather, the parent is said only to have “brought” or “carried” his child to the god. Yet more telling is the deceptive name “Good and Happy Day” to describe the day of the sacrifice. Justification of the rite was the belief that the children were elevated to special godhood in the netherworld, they constituting a distinct class of the dead called “the gods who were sacrificed.”

Death and the Netherworld

The Phoenicians shared the common Canaanite belief in a netherworld where the dead lived on as gods, called the “Rafaʾim gods.” When one died, one went to have “rest among the Rafaʾim.” According to Western Phoenician belief, the netherworld, called the “Dark Chamber(s),” was ruled by “Hawwit, the goddess who rules the Dead,” also known as “Mother.” Her male companion was probably the god Nergal. Entry into the netherworld may perhaps not have been automatic but earned through righteous conduct during one’s lifetime; this may be inferred from the term miske (“those who died innocent”) for the dead over whom Hawwit ruled. Other epitaphs note that the deceased “died an innocent person,” “was honest during his lifetime,” or “was righteous.” This aspect of Phoenician funerary belief may have been deeply influenced by the cult of Isis and Osiris, which was popular in both Western and Eastern Phoenicia.

Society and Its Values

Phoenician society, East and West, was powerfully motivated by a profound sense of civic and religious responsibility on the part of the individual and the collective. Primary and most highly esteemed of virtues was the “performance of service on behalf of the community,” or “(public) service” (misrat). Service entailed sustained effort to benefit the welfare of one’s community and one’s god(s); it was incumbent upon every individual and group, with the promise of public reward and acclaim for action but social ostracism and divine condemnation for inaction.

Dedication to public service was also a primary focus of the most important of all Phoenician social institutions, the men’s fellowships or clubs: the marzih ilim and the mizrah ilim. These were essentially eating and drinking clubs (cf. Amos 6:4-6). Known by the general term “fellowship” the clubs were organized of a general membership of “fellows,” headed by an elected president called the “convenor.” The club’s financial affairs, including renting quarters for its meetings, were attended to by an elected “treasurer.” Not merely humans belonged to such clubs but the gods as well, as depicted in the ancient Canaanite mythology, which provides an account of the god Il’s eating and drinking to intoxication at the banquet of his marzih. Indeed, in Canaanite society it was the duty of a good son to carry his drunken father home. While organized primarily for social pursuits, the clubs were each affiliated with a particular god/goddess. It was to the service of their patron god that the membership devoted itself assiduously, together to pray and to sacrifice jointly to their patron deity.

Bibliography. D. C. Baramki, Phoenicia and the Phoenicians (Beirut, 1961); D. B. Harden, The Phoenicians, 3rd ed. (New York, 1980); S. Lancel, Carthage: A History (Oxford, 1995); P. MacKendrick, The North African Stones Speak (Chapel Hill, 1980); S. Moscati, The World of the Phoenicians (London, 1968); B. H. Warmington, Carthage, 2nd ed. (New York, 1969).

Charles R. Krahmalkov

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

PHOENICIA

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)