Version classiqueVersion mobile

La norme en matière religieuse en Grèce ancienne

 | 
Pierre Brulé

Sacrificial Norms, Greek and Semitic: Holocausts and Hides in a Sacred Law of Aixone1

Scott Scullion

Résumé

L’article soutient l’hypothèse qu’une inscription d’Aixone en Attique, récemment publiée, atteste, ainsi que l’affirmait son éditeur, plusieurs exemples d’holocaustes à un dieu chthonien et à des héros dont les prêtres officiants prennent la peau comme émoluments. On invoque des parallèles hébreux et puniques pour de tels émoluments prélevés sur des holocaustes, et l’on suggère que ce doit avoir été la procédure normale en Grèce, tout comme il était normal pour les Hébreux et les Puniques, non seulement d’écorcher, mais encore de découper les victimes d’holocauste avant de les incinérer en sections à la flamme de l’autel. Un certain nombre de textes sur lesquels l’inscription d’Aixone jette une nouvelle lumière sont analysés, de même que la signification du nouveau document dans le contexte du débat récent sur la validité de la distinction olympien/ chthonien.

Texte intégral

  • 1 The following abbreviations are used: LSAM: Fr. SOKOLOWSKI, Lois sacrees de l’Asie mineure, Paris, (...)
  • 1 G. Steinhauer, “ερς νόμος Αξωνέων”, in A.P. Matthaiou (ed.), ττιϰα πιγραφαί: Πραϰτιϰὰ Συμποσί (...)

1Our knowledge of Greek sacrifice and its norms is so limited that the publication even of a single new text can change things radically, attesting previously unsuspected practices and giving fresh scope for speculation. So it is with a new Athenian text of the fourth century B.C. published by George Steinhauer in 2004, the lower fragment of a stone bearing a sacred law of the Attic deme Aixone of which the upper half has been known since 1839.1 The new text apparently attests at least four holocaust sacrifices from which the priest or priestess takes the hide as a perquisite, a procedure previously unattested in our evidence for Greek sacrifice, but for which there are striking Hebrew and Punic parallels. I consider here how the new evidence can contribute to our under-standing of holocaust sacrifice and of the relationship between Greek and Semitic sacrificial practice.

2The previously known fragments of the inscription provide unusually full prescriptions of the fees, allowances, and perquisites of priests and priestesses officiating at sacrifices to six recipients: one whose name is unknown, lost with the missing upper portion of the stone; a Heroine; Dionysus Anthios; Hera; Demeter Chloe; and a goddess most of whose name is lost in a lacuna (and is not easy to restore: 6 letters + -ιας). I reproduce here, as an example of these prescriptions, that for the Heroine:

  • 2 LSCG, 28, 5-9, in Steinhauer’s edition (n. 1).

ρώ]ινης ερείαι ερεώσυνα :Γ:, τ δέρματα ϰ τν [ρ]ωινίων πάντων, εστ[õ] τελέο :├├├:, δεισίας ϰρεν, πυρν μιέϰτεω [:ΙΙ]Ι:, μέλιτος ϰοτύλης :ΙΙΙ:, λαίο τριών ϰοτυλν IC, φρυγάνω[ν] :ΙΙπ δ[] τν τράπεζαν ϰ[ω]λν, πλευρν σχίο, μίϰρα[ι]ραν χ[ορδ]ς.2

  • 3 A rare and difficult term: LSJ s.v. δεισία, P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue g (...)
  • 4 Again difficult, but perhaps the hinder portion of one flank, between the lowest ribs and the hip-s (...)
  • 5 Or possibly “half-kraira of tripe”; the word χορδή can mean either, but finished sausage seems a ra (...)

3To the priestess of The Heroine, perquisites, 5 drachmai, the hides from all the offerings at the Heroinia festival, for a full-grown singed offering 3 drachmai, two portions (?3) of meat, for a half-hekteus of wheat 3 obols, for a kotyle of honey 3 obols, for three kotylai of oil 1V2 obols, for firewood 2 obols; onto the table a thigh, a haunch-flank (?4), a half-kraira of blood sausage5.

4This is typical of the provisions that were previously known. The officiant receives a cash fee for her services as well as the valuable hides of the victims — with cash compensation in the case of swine, whose skins are not removed but singed and eaten — and two portions of the meat (if that is what is meant), that is twice the standard portion distributed to participants in the rite. She is also compensated for the purchase of necessary provisions for the sacrifice: wheat, honey, and oil (these doubtless for cakes) and wood for the fire. The officiant and/or other officials receive in addition the much more substantial portions of the victim that are placed on the offering-table. All six of the previously-known entries — with exceptions to be specified shortly — likewise prescribe a five-drachmai fee; entitlement to the hides (with cash compensation for singed pigskins where relevant, that is for The Heroine and Hera); a double-portion of meat; allowance at precisely the same rate for wheat, honey, oil, and wood; and deposit of thigh, haunch-flank, and half-kraira of blood sausage on the table. In the case of the first, unknown recipient the whole of the first part of the entry is missing from the stone, but the same prescriptions for wheat, honey, oil, wood, and table-offerings are present. The entry for Dionysus Anthios is notably spare, and perhaps refers to a less elaborate ritual occasion: wheat, honey, oil, and wood are not mentioned, nor double portion of meat. Every officiant is entitled to the hide except the priestess of Demeter Chloe; the goddess therefore presumably received, as she often does, a porcine (though no compensation for a singed skin is specified).

5It is remarkable that the break between the known and the new fragments of the stone corresponds to a striking change in the content of the prescriptions. The previously unknown entries are as follows:

  • 6 The ϰα is added in the space between entries, and the two deltas that go with it between the lines (...)

γ[ν]ς Θεõ [- 23
ερείαι ερεώσυ̣[να :Γ:, ϰριθ]<ν> τριτέως ├:; πυρῶν ϰτέως :├:, μέλιτος δυον [ϰοτύ]λ̣λαιν :├:, λαίο τρι[ν] ϰοτυλν :ΙC:, 25
ονο χος :ΙΙC:, φρ[υγ]ά̣νων :ΙΙ:, ξύλων :├├├:. v γνς Θεõ ἱερεῖ τα[]τ ἅπερ τ[ι ]ερείαι ϰαὶ τῶν θυομένων τὰ δέρμ
ΔΔ. ϰα : Δ
[ατα] μφον ϰα6 Π[αρ]ά̣̣λο ἱερεῖ ἱερεώσυνα :Γ: τ δέρμα τõ [ο]ός, πυρῶν [ϰτέ]ως :├:, μέλιτος δυον ϰοτύλαιν :├, λαίο τριῶν ϰοτ[υλ]ν :ΙC, ϰριθῶν τεταρτέως :ΙΙΙΙ:, ονο δυο- 30
ν χοον ΙΙΙΙ̣][, φρ]υγάνων :ΙΙ:. v Ἀρχηγέτο ἱερεῖ ϰα τν λλων ἡρώων [ἱερ]εώσυνα :Γ:, τὰ δέρματα ὧν ἂν ϰατάρξηται π δ τ[ν ]σχάραν πυρῶν μιέϰτεω :ΙΙΙ:, λαίο τριῶν ϰοτυλ[ν :ΙC], μέλιτος ϰοτύλης :ΙΙΙταν δ τν τράπεζαν, πυρν [δυ]ον χοινίϰοιν :ΙC, λαίο δυον ϰοτύλαιν :Ι:, μ- 35
έλιτο[ς] μιϰοτυλίο :ΙC:, φρυγάνων :ΙΙ:. v ταν δέ τις τν πεντη[ϰ]οσστύω[ν] θύηι ν τος ἡρώοις πο, πί τν τράπεζα[ν] παρέχεν πυρῶν δύο χοίνιϰε, λαίο δύο ϰότυλα, μέ<λ>ιτος μιϰοτύλιον. vacat 39

  • 7 Steinhauer, l.c. (n. 1), p. 164 favours Kore, citing Pausanias, IV, 33, 4 on the cult of Hagne (Kor (...)
  • 8 This must I think be the right translation, “anywhere among the herod” = “at any herood”, cf. the S (...)

To the priestess of Hagnê Theos [Demeter, or perhaps Kore7], perquisites, 5 drachmai, for a triteus of barley 1 drachma, for a hekteus of wheat 1 drachma, for two kotylai of honey 1 drachma, for three kotylai of oil 1V2 obols, for a chous of wine 2V2 obols, for firewood 2 obols, for larger pieces of wood 3 drachmai. To the priest of Hagnê Theos the same [perquisites] as to the priestess, and the hides of the sacrificial offerings to both [priest and priestess] <<and 20 drachmai>>. To the priest of [the hero] Paralos, perquisites, 5 drachmai <<and 10 drachmai>>, the hide of the sheep, for a hekteus of wheat 1 drachma, for two kotylai of honey 1 drachma, for three kotylai of oil 1V2 obols, for a tetarteus of barley 4V2 obols, for two choes of wine 5 obols, for firewood 2 obols. To the priest of Archegetes and the other heroes, perquisites, 5 drachmai, the hides of whatever offerings he commence-sacrifices; onto the eschara [hearth] for a half-hekteus of wheat 3 obols, for three kotylai of oil 1V2 obols, for a kotyle of honey 3 obols; but whenever it is onto the table, for two choinikes of wheat 1V2 obols, for two kotylai of oil 1 obol, for a half-kotyle of honey 1V2 obols, for firewood 2 obols. But whenever any of the pentekostyes sacrifices at any of the hero-sanctuaries8, onto the table he must provide two choinikes of wheat, two kotylai of oil, a half-kotyle of honey.

  • 9 Steinhauer, l.c. (n. 1), p. 164 concludes that the sacrifices in this part of the inscription are (...)

6The differences between the two sequences of offerings are striking and consistent. Some are relatively minor, but the startling change is that there is no mention, as there is in all but one of the earlier prescriptions, of “double portions” of meat, nor any specification, as in all the preceding cases, of perquisites of meat and sausage to be placed “onto the table”. The absence of both specifications is coherent, and this justifies a firm conclusion that no meat was available from these offerings. The obvious inference is that they were whole-burnt or holocaust sacrifices, as is perhaps also suggested by the provision of larger wood (26) for the offerings to Hagnê Theos, which may have involved more than one victim or a victim larger than the single sheep for Paralos.9

  • 10 S. Scullion, “Heroic and Chthonian Sacrifice: New Evidence from Selinous”, ZPE 132 (2000), p. 163-1 (...)
  • 11 1 had discussed the Hebrew parallels, in a different connection, at S. Scullion, “Olympian and Chth (...)
  • 12 See e.g. B. Bergquist, Herakles on Thasos, Uppsala, 1973, p. 71-72.

7Many scholars will consider it an obstacle to acceptance of this conclusion that in every case the officiating priest obtains the hide as a perquisite. I myself said in an earlier paper that “primafacie one wouldn’t expect a holocaust offering to involve any perquisites”.10 I was aware that Hebrew priests took perquisites from holocausts11, but did not dispute the general assumption that if there were perquisites a Greek sacrifice could not be a holocaust.12 The new text changes the picture completely. Its evidence for hide-perquisites from holocausts seems unambiguous and can be supported by clear parallels in Hebrew and Punic sources and by two or three suggestive passages in Greek texts.

8Let us consider first the best supporting evidence on the Greek side, an inscription from Cos of the mid-fourth century B.C. which describes in detail an elaborate ritual of sacrifice to Zeus Polieus and various preliminary offerings, including this:

  • 13 LSCG, 151A, 32-35 = P.J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323 B.C., Oxford, (...)

τοί δ̣̣ὲ̣ [ϰάρυϰες ϰ]αρπντι τμ μγ χο-[ρο]γ̣ ϰα τ σπλάγχνα π το βωμο πισ̣π̣̣έ̣ν̣̣δοντες μελίϰρατον, [ντ-] [ερ]α̣ δ̣ὲ ϰπλύναντες παρ τ̣ό̣[μ βωμν ϰα]ρ̣πντι πε δέ ϰα ϰαρπω[θι] ̣ποτ̣α̣, πισπενδέτω μελίϰρα̣τ̣ο̣ν̣13

  • 14 The verb ϰαρποῦν indicates a holocaust: see P. Stengel, Opferbràuche der Griechen, Leipzig, 1910, p (...)
  • 15 Rhodes & Osborne, o.c. (n. 13), p. 301 translate “when they have washed the intestines they burn th (...)

The heralds whole-sacrifice14 the piglet and its innards on the altar, pouring a libation of honey-mix (milk and honey) over them, and having cleaned the intestines out at the side of the altar they whole-sacrifice them15; and when they have been whole-sacrificed without wine, let the sacrificer pour a libation of honey-mix over them.

  • 16 Stengel, o.c. (n. 14), p. 90 n. 2 asserted boldly that the passage “beweist, dass bei allen Holokau (...)
  • 17 LSCG, 9, a fifth-century-B.c. Attic inscription: Τντερχ-1 σο ϰλύζετ[ε] | ϰα τν ν-| θον νίζ (...)

9This passage was the basis of Stengel’s long since forgotten claim that holocaust victims were cut open and their splanchna removed before they were thrown onto the fire.16 The intestines of victims of “Olympian” sacrifice, in which only a thighbone and fat (and often the sacrum and tail) were burnt on the altar, will routinely have been cleaned and used, perhaps primarily as sausage-casing, and we have a cultic regulation governing such cleaning.17 Here the intestines are cleaned and then whole-burnt.

  • 18 FGrH 43 F 3 ap. Plut., Quaest. conv, 694a-b, cf. Ekroth o.c. (n. 5), p. 224 with n. 43. I am gratef (...)

10Plutarch preserves a fragment of Metrodorus — probably but by no means certainly the fourth-century-B.C. Chiot historian — describing a holocaust sacrifice of a black bull for the cattle-devouring demon Boubrostis at Smyrna: θύουσι Βουβρώστει ταῦρον μέλανα ϰαὶ ϰαταϰόψαντες αὐτόδορον ὁλοϰαυτοῦσιν, “they sacrifice a black bull to Boubrostis and having cut it up they whole-burn it, hide and all”.18 Here the victim is not only cut open but cut in sections before being immolated, though the uncertain source and date of this evidence and the demon Boubrostis as recipient mean that we must hesitate to treat it as evidence for cultic practice in the classical period.

  • 19 I am grateful to Robert Parker for reminding me of this passage. When Metrodorus (previous note) sa (...)

11At Odyssey X, 533 = XI, 46 Odysseus is to bid his men flaj and burn (δείραντας ϰαταϰῆαι) the sheep whose blood the ghosts will drink; the relationship of this unusual holocaust to ordinary sacrificial practice is unclear, and caution is therefore in order here too, but it is unlikely that the incidental detail of the flaying is an invented anomaly.19

12These parallels only take us so far. An animal that is to be burnt whole is — for no obvious reason — cut open, flayed, or cut up, and the parts of it are all then burnt. It is quite another matter to withhold some part or parts of such a victim from the flames as a perquisite for an officiant. That, however, on the only natural reading, is what our new text attests, and there are ancient parallels for just such a procedure that may help the doubtful to accept the new evidence for what it is.

  • 20 ‘Olah, Leviticus 1:3-17; 6:8-13 [= 6:1-6 in the Hebrew numeration]; 7:8. Minchah, Lev. 2:116; 6:14- (...)

13Leviticus, the third book of the Torah or Pentateuch, describes in detail the principal types and procedures of Hebrew sacrifice. Far the commonest was ‘olah or holocaust, traditionally translated “burnt offering”. Minchah or “cereal offering” accompanied ‘olah sacrifices of animals in the temple. Zebach shelamim or “peace-offering” corresponds to the commonest type of Greek sacrifice: some fat, the kidneys, and part of the liver, and also the tails of sheep, are burnt for God; the priesthood takes the breast and the officiating priest the right thigh as perquisites; and the remaining meat is taken away by the donor. Chattat or “sin-offering” and ‘asham or “guilt-offering” are expiatory sacrifices. ‘Olah sacrifices are always burnt; so is the minchah when it is sacrificed by a priest in his own behalf, but when it is offered on behalf of a layman only a portion is burnt, the priest taking the rest as perquisite. In zebach shelamim only God’s portion is burnt. Chattat and asham are expiations and so the person who provides the victim does not partake of the meat: if he is a priest himself, the meat is burnt; if he is a layman (much the more common situation), it is a perquisite of the officiating priest.20

  • 21 Scullion, le (n. 11), p. 98-112.
  • 22 Chattat: Leviticus 6:26 [6:19 in the Hebrew numeration]; minchah: 6:16 [6:9]; ‘asham: 7:6; see also (...)

14In a previous paper I suggested that these Hebrew procedures offer an illuminating parallel for the not uncommon Greek restriction — expressed by such phrases as οὐ φορά, οὐϰ ἀποφορά and δαινύσθων ατο — that confined consumption of the meat from a specified sacrifice to the sanctuary.21 The edibles from chattat, ‘asham, and minchah offerings by laymen which go to the priests must be eaten by them within the sanctuary precinct.22 The Hebrew rule allows the consumption of what as expiations are essentially “renunciatory” offerings, that is allows them to become “participatory” offerings for priests but acknowledges their underlying status by confining them to the sanctuary. The Greek “on-the-spot” prescription is a similar compromise between renunciatory sacrifice to chthonian or partly chthonian divinities and heroes, which is appropriate especially when the ritual acknowledges their dangerous or ambivalent side, and Olympian participatory sacrifice which permitted consumption of almost all the meat, much of which might be carried away raw from the sanctuary.

  • 23 I quote the translation of J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, New York, 1991 (Anchor Bible 3), p. 133, but (...)

15It is again Hebrew sacrificial practice that offers illuminating parallels to the new evidence from Aixone. The first chapter of Leviticus prescribes the procedures in ‘olah sacrifices of bulls (1:3-9), sheep or goats (1:10-13), and birds (1:14-17); the fullest are those for bulls23:

3If his offering is a ‘olah from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance on his behalf before the Lord. 4He shall lean his hand on the head of the ‘olah, that it may be acceptable on his behalf, to expiate for him. 5The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood and dash the blood against all sides of the altar that is at the entance to the Tent of Meeting. 6The ‘olah shall be flayed and quartered. 7The sons of Aaron the priest shall stoke the fire on the altar and lay out wood upon the fire. 8Then Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the quarters, with the head and suet, on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar. 9Its entrails and shins shall be washed with water, and the priest shall turn all of it into smoke on the altar as a ‘olah, a food gift of pleasing aroma to the Lord.

  • 24 Transl. Milgrom, o.c. (n. 22), p. 380. In his note, p. 411, Milgrom argues that “a person’s ‘olah’ (...)

16Among the additional instructions for priests in Leviticus chapters six and seven is this (7:8): “The priest who sacrifices a person’s ‘olah shall keep the hide of the ‘olah that he sacrificed”24. This provision, which is consistent with that for flaying the bull in Lev. 1:6, provides a precise parallel for the taking of hides as perquisites from the holocaust offerings at Aixone. Not only is the parallel remarkably clear, but the procedure is eminently plausible. It will have been very much easier to burn a holocaust victim if it was first cut into pieces which were laid separately on the fire; a much larger fire would be required success-fully to burn a slaughtered beast whole. The increase in surface-to-volume ratio (expert colleagues tell me) makes it a very much more efficient use of firewood to incinerate a flayed and sectioned carcass than a whole one. The large accumulations of firewood in ancient représentations of funeral pyres reflect the relative efficiency of the two methods of incineration.

  • 25 See E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II (English version rev (...)
  • 26 The parallel was noted by R.K. Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and in Early Judaism, (...)

17Once a victim for holocaust was cut up, the purity problem of the ordure in the intestines became obvious: in Hebrew temple-sacrifice the ordure was removed in the slaughter-area to the north of the altar, where there were marble tables for flaying and for cleaning the entrails25; at Cos the intestines of the holocaust piglet are washed out “beside the altar” and then burnt. The treatment of the intestines, while an obvious enough purity procedure in both cultures, is another close parallel between Greek and Hebrew sacrifice.26

18The Hebrew perquisites are mentioned by Philo, who stresses their cumulative value:

  • 27 Philo Judaeus, De specialibus legibus I, 30 (151).

φπασι μέντοι ϰα τς τν λοϰαυτωμάτωνμύθητα δ τατστίδορς προστάττει τος πηρετοντας τας θυσίαις ερες λαμβάνειν, ο βραχεαν λλν τος μάλιστα πολυχρήματον δωρεάν.27

In addition to all these, moreover, it (sc. the law) ordains that the priests rende-ring service at the sacrifices receive from the holocausts, which are innumerable, the hides of the offerings — not a minor but an exceptionally valuable bounty.

  • 28 See D. Pardee, “A Punic Sacrificial Tariff”, in W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture I, Leide (...)

19Punic sacrificial tradition also seems to have known holocaust sacrifice from which the hide was taken as a perquisite, but here the evidence is not quite so firm. Two so-called Punic “sacrificial tariffs”, catalogues of perquisites belonging probably to the late fourth or third century B.C., speak of a category of sacrifice kll, the (unvocalised) Punic equivalent of (vocalised) Hebrew kalil, “whole”; kalil occurs as an equivalent of ‘olah in the Hebrew bible, and so the Punic term is generally regarded as indicating a “whole-burnt” or holocaust offering.28 If “whole-sacrifice” is the meaning of kll, the texts offer further examples of our phenomenon:

  • 29 This, the shlm kll offering, seems to be equivalent, also etymologically, to Hebrew (zebach) shelam (...)
  • 30 The text, discovered in Marseilles but very probably from Carthage, is Corpus Inscriptionum Semitic (...)

In (the case of) a mature bovine: (whether it be) a whole offering [kll], or a pre-sentation-offering, or a whole well-being offering29, the priests receive ten (shekels) of silver for each (animal offered); in (the case of) the whole offering they receive in addition to this fee [three-hundred (shekels-)weight of] meat; in (the case of) the presentation-offering (they receive) the lower part of the legs and the (leg-)joints, whereas the hide, the ribs, the feet and the rest of the flesh go to the one who brought the sacrifice.30

  • 31 The text, from Carthage, is Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, I, 167 = Donner, Röllig (eds.), o.c. (...)

2[For an ox, whole-offerings or prayer-offering (?), the skin shall go] to the priests, but the ? shall belong to the person offering the sacrifice.
4[For a ram or for a goat, whole-offerings or] prayer-offering (?), the skin of the goats shall go to the priests, but the ? [and the feet] shall belong to the person offering the sacrifice.31

  • 32 Pardee, l.c. (n. 28), p. 306, n. 11, though in the second inscription I quote the offerer does take (...)

20The priestly perquisite of meat from a whole offering in the first inscription may seem surprising, but as Pardee persuasively comments “the fact that the priest gets a portion of the meat does not constitute a particular problem: the offerer does not receive any part of the animal”32. The primary consideration here, as in Hebrew tradition, is on whose behalf a sacrifice is made. The Hebrew priests take as perquisite the bulk of a minchah offering that they make on behalf of another; ‘olah is the animal offering that corresponds to a minchah offering of cereal, but despite this analogy Hebrew priests do not keep the meat from a ‘olah sacrificed in another’s behalf. Their Punic counterparts, however, do keep some of the meat of a whole-offering undoubtedly on a similar conceptual or analogical basis. More importantly for us, both Punic texts very probably attest preservation of the hide of a whole-offering for use, in the first case by the animal’s donor, in the second by priests. Both provisions parallel — the latter precisely — both Hebrew procedure and the newly attested prescriptions at Aixone.

  • 33 There is a detailed and helpful discussion of these matters in Schurer, o.c. (n. 25), p. 25774, who (...)

21It is not impossible that these parallels are the result of diffusion, but it seems to me at least as likely that they are independent developments, the result of a reluctance in both cultures — a reluctance which priests were able, perhaps gradually, to reflect in procedure — to destroy more meat or other usable parts of sacrificial offerings than was absolutely necessary, or to go without perquisites in kind as well as cash. The hide perquisite from ‘olah victims was probably instituted relatively late. In the earlier Deuteronomic source (D) of the Pentateuch the priestly portions are shoulder, cheeks, and stomach (Deuteron-omy 18:3). The hide is first specified among the elaborate ritual provisions (Leviticus 1-7) of the post-exilic Priestly Code (P), the latest Pentateuchal source.33 Greek priests too will have been tempted to increase their perquisites, but we cannot date their introduction of hide-perquisites from holocausts.

22The explicit statement in the Hebrew bible that ‘olah offerings were flayed and quartered (Lev. 1:6) reminds us that a veritable inferno of a fire will have been required to burn an animal whole in the literal sense and that the Hebrew procedure is a much more efficient method of achieving the same end. The inscription from Cos attests a holocaust victim cut open before being burnt. At Smyrna, if we can believe Metrodorus’ fragment, the bull was “cut up” for holocaust, and it may be that at Cos too the piglet was cut into sections before being burnt. The hide-perquisites from the holocaust victims at Aixone prove that they were flayed before being put on the fire, and so too were Odysseus’ sheep. It is difficult to resist the supposition that in all these cases, and indeed generally in the Greek world, holocaust victims were cut into sections for ease of incineration. The Coan text does not imply that such cutting was an unusual operation, indeed by not even mentioning it the composer of the text — whichis one of the most detailed Greek descriptions of sacrificial procedure we have — rather takes it for granted that this was normal procedure. If Greek holocaust victims were normally cut up, it is less surprising that the custom developed of regarding the hide of such victims as a priestly perquisite, just as it was in ordinary Olympian sacrifice. Greeks, Hebrews, and Phoenicians were in constant contact, and it is therefore possible that one group took over from the other the practice of flaying and sectioning holocaust victims and/or of making their hides a perquisite but, as I have suggested, it is equally likely that the same considerations of efficiency of burning and preservation of resources worked independently in both cultures.

23There is, then, no reason not to accept that the new text from Aixone attests a number of holocaust sacrifices from which the skin was taken as a priestly perquisite. If we do so, we are in a position to reconsider some other Greek texts in the light of this new “norm”, which it seems unlikely will have been the norm for holocausts only at Aixone.

24Let us begin with a much-discussed inscription from Thasos of the mid-fifth century B.C.:

  • 34 LSS, 63.

[Ἡρα]ϰλε Θασίωι
[
αγ]α ο θέμις, ο-
[
δ] χοῖρον · οδέ γ-
[
υ]ναιϰί θέμις · ο-
[
δ’] νατεύεται · ο
δ γέρα τέμνετα
ι · οδθλεται.34

To Heracles Thasios it is not permitted [to sacrifice] a goat, nor a piglet, nor is it permitted for a woman [to attend], nor is ninth-sacrifice performed, nor are perquisites cut, nor are portions offered as contest-prizes.

  • 35 Scullion, l.c. (n. 10), to which I refer readers for more detailed discussion and doxology. See now (...)
  • 36 Heracles on Thasos, second attestation: IG XII, Suppl. 353, 10; Tritopatores and Zeus Meilichios at (...)

25In a previous paper I argued that this text is requiring an unmodified chthonian sacrifice, that is a complete holocaust.35 With the ninth-sacrifice forbidden here I compared other attestations of the burning of more than the usual “Olympian” divine portion of thighbone and fat: a second attestation on Thasos of ninth-sacrifice for Heracles; a ninth-sacrifice “to the polluted Tritopatores as to the heroes” and the burning of a whole thigh for Zeus Meilichios in the new sacred law from Selinus; ninth-sacrifice for Semele on Mykonos; substantial portions burnt for Heracles “as a hero” at Sicyon; and less securely attested burning of whole thighs for Heracles at Miletus and of a whole thigh for Hermes at Athens.36 This sort of burning of a substantial portion, for which I coined the term “moirocaust”, is (I argued) comparable with “on-the-spot” dining (discussed above) as a modification of chthonian destruction-sacrifice in the direction of Olympian banquet-sacrifice. If that is correct, the prohibition on ninth-sacrifice in the present text would more plausibly be seen as meaning “perform a full holocaust, not the standard compromise” than “do not perform a ninth-sacrifice — nor any other modified chthonian rite, nor a full-scale holocaust; on the contrary, perform an ordinary banquet-sacrifice.” The straightforward way to require an ordinary offering would be to prescribe sacrifice to Heracles “as a god”, ς θει, a phrase applied to him elsewhere in this sense, in contrast to offerings to him “as a hero”, ς ἥρωι. The prohibition of ninth-sacrifice is natural because a distinction is being made between established modes of sacrifice to heroes: on the one hand a form of modified holocaust well-attested for Heracles, on the other the full-scale rite.

  • 37 B. Bergquist, “A re-study of two Thasian instances of ένατεύειν”, in HäggAlroth (eds.), o.c. (n. (...)
  • 38 Bergquist, o.c. (n. 12), p. 71-2.

26Bergquist, to whose study of the Thasian inscription my own paper was in part a reply, argued that the Thasian inscription was meant through a series of prohibitions to produce anormal, “participatory” offering.37 One of Bergquist’s arguments was that the prohibition “nor are perquisites cut” excludes the possibility that a holocaust is being required, since there would be no need to prohibit perquisites if the offering were a holocaust.38 My response to this argument was that though a holocaust might not involve perquisites a modified chthonian offering such as a ninth-sacrifice might, and that there was therefore point in ruling out perquisites as well as ninth-sacrifice.

27The new evidence from Aixone invites reconsideration. We now know that holocausts could indeed involve — and perhaps regularly involved, as they certainly did at Aixone — the taking of the hide as a perquisite. There was therefore every reason for the composer of the Thasian text to prohibit the cutting of perquisites, and in my view this makes it the more probable that the text is requiring an unusually “renunciatory” holocaust, with no concessions given to either donors or priests, though even this victim may well have been sectioned for burning.

28If this interpretation of the evidence is on the right lines, or at any rate plausible, there may be evidence for another kind of modification of chthonian sacrificial procedure in the sacrificial calendar of the Attic deme Erchia. Two separate entries there prescribe sacrifices on the same day for Artemis:

ρτέμιδι ς
Σωτιδν ρχ-
ι : αξ, ο φορά,
τ δέρμα ϰατ-
αγίζ : Δ

  • 39 LSCG, 18, Γ, 8-12; Δ, 8-12.

ρτέμιδι, π
τõ ϰρο ρχ-
ι, αξ, ο φορ-
ά, δέρμα ϰατα-
<
ι>γίζε : Δ39

  • 40 Cf. LSCG, 151, D, 16-17.
  • 41 Mykonos: LSCG, 96, 22-26; Erchia: LSCG, 18, A, 19-22; A, 46-51; Δ, 35-40; E, 3-8; cf. Scullion, l.c (...)

29In both cases the meat of the goat was eaten, as the ο φορά provision indicates, but the goatskin is to be burnt in the fire. Sokolowski (whose angular brackets indicate deletion) was surely right to conclude that the verb must be ϰαθαγίζειν, “whole-burn” rather than ϰαταιγίζειν, “rush down like a storm/be tempestuous”; the cutter was doubtless influenced in the second case by the preceding αξ.40 The taking of hides from modified chthonian offerings is attested on Mykonos and in four other entries in the calendar of Erchia, all of which require “on-the-spot” dining.41 The burning of the goatskin at the sacrifices for Artemis establishes a slightly darker mood by forbidding a perquisite which was perhaps usual in this sort of modified chthonian rite and which was certainly allowed at the comparable sacrifices in Erchia.

  • 42 P.G.W. Glare (ed.), LSJ Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement, Oxford, 1996 tentatively defines (...)
  • 43 H. Lloyd-Jones, “Aeschylus, Agamemnon 416ff. ” [sic: 146ff.], CQ n.s. 3 (1953), p. 96 notes that th (...)

30Let us turn finally, among texts on which our new evidence may cast light, to a line of verse. In the parodos of Aeschylus’Agamemnon, the chorus famously speak of the sacrifice of Iphigenia as a θυσίαν τέραν νομόν τινδαιτον (150). The adjective αδαιτος is taken to mean “without a feast”, but against the background of evidence suggesting that almost all Greek victims, including holocausts, will have been cut up, it perhaps rather means “undivided”, which would be consistent with usage of similar formations from the same Greek and Indo-European root, whose basic sense is “divide”.42 The distinction between “undivided” and “without a feast” is not absolute, but “undivided” has the advantage of specifying the force of νομος, “contrary to custom”, and the verse consorts better with the element of restraint evident elsewhere in the chorus’s account of the sacrifice if the spectre of cannibalism is not raised.43

  • 44 F.T. van Straten, Hierà Kalá. Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece, Leiden, 1 (...)
  • 45 The osphus burning in the flames is a favourite motif of the vase painters, but that is doubtless b (...)
  • 46 See van Straten, o.c. (n. 44), p. 154 and 4-5. S. Peirce, “Death, Revelry, and Thjsia”, ClAnt 12 (1 (...)

31This broken stone from the Attic deme of Aixone brings what is in one sense a modest increase in our evidence for Greek sacrifice, but it has broad implications for the study of Greek and indeed of ancient Mediterranean practice. I have raised the possibility that cutting a holocaust victim before burning it may have been normal practice not only at Aixone but in the Greek world in general, and it is striking that the new evidence attests not a single, isolated example but several. That we have not previously suspected the existence of such a practice is hardly surprising when our evidence for Greek sacrifice is so spotty and laconic. Scholars have assumed that holocaust means the burning not of a whole animal but of an animal as a whole, and attestations of holocaust have therefore been assumed to preclude removal of the skin or sectioning of the carcass. Attestations of hide-perquisites have correspondingly been assumed to rule out holocaust. Here for the first time holocaust and cutting are associated regularly, as a norm. I have not gone through the whole body of evidence for Greek sacrifice with the possibility that this was general Greek practice in mind, but I am not aware of any textual counter-evidence. Nor is the visual evidence any obstacle to the notion that this was a general norm. I quote van Straten, in the standard study of the visual evidence for Greek sacrifice: “One can easily understand that the type of sacrifice in which the animal was burnt whole offered less scope for vase paintings than the type of sacrificial ceremony that has been our main concern so far. Still, it is a little surprising that holokausta are all but absent in the Greek iconographical material”.44 From our present perspective, van Straten’s hesitant conclusion that the burning of an animal as a whole would not naturally lend itself to vase painting seems unconvincing and unnecessary. Many vases show innards being roasted over the altar-fire on spits, and the painters would clearly have been capable of depicting a whole animal in the flames — rather an impressive sight,one would have thought. The fact that they never do so is readily explained if animais were seldom or never burnt as a whole. Spitted innards being roasted do not in principle seem more attractive to depict than whole animals in the flames, but they do seem preferable to pieces of meat being incinerated at the base of the flames, which was probably the reality of holocaust sacrifice.45 There are many elements of sacrifice beside the incineration of holocaust offerings that vase painters seldom or never depict, including the reservation of priestly perquisites and purificatory sacrifice,46 but we may after all have a few depictions of holocaust sacrifice if depictions of butchery need no longer be connected exclusively with Olympian sacrifice. The suggestion that it was general Greek practice to cut up holocaust victims for burning needs testing over time against the full range of evidence, but there is a good deal to be said for it.

  • 47 Milgrom, o.c. (n. 23), p. 157 on Lev. 1:6.
  • 48 Holocaust sacrifices — prodiguas hostiae — are known only in connection with the secular games, off (...)

32In his commentary on Leviticus, discussing the treatment of ‘olah victims, Milgrom comments that “flaying, quartering, and washing (the entrails) were not always required in other cultures, where the animal was burned whole on the altar”.47 He does not give an example of such a culture, but may well have been thinking of the Greeks. In Roman religion virtually every sacrificial victim was eaten. A vanishingly small proportion of Roman sacrifices — some few victims offered at the Secular Games — were burnt whole “according to the Greek rite”,48 but if the present argument is sound both Greek holocaust victims and Roman victims sacrificed in the Greek way will have been sectioned before being burnt. It would be interesting to know whether sacrificial whole-burning in the literal sense is firmly attested anywhere in the ancient Mediterranean world.

33I comment finally and briefly on the relevance of the new evidence to another problem of Greek religious norms, the much-debated question of the validity of the distinction between Olympian and chthonian modes of sacrifice.

  • 49 Scullion, l.e (n. 11).
  • 50 Most fully, with reference to heroic sacrifice, by Ekroth, o.c. (n. 5), p. 310-334; see also Hägg(...)
  • 51 Paralos is a well-attested Athenian hero, connected with the sea: see E. Kearns, The Heroes of Atti (...)
  • 52 Scullion, l.c. (n. 11), p. 89-92.
  • 53 R. Parker, “ς ρωι ναγίζειν”, in HäggAlroth (eds.), o.c. (n. 9), p. 37-45 notes (p. 40) that “ (...)
  • 54 Ackermann, l.c. (n. 7), p. 131-132 (with reference to earlier contributions to the debate) has come (...)

34In a previous paper, I have attempted to defend the Olympian/chthonian distinction by reconceiving it as a polarity with a continuum of mixed rites between the two poles rather than as an absolute and mutually exclusive opposition.49 That defence has been contested,50 but the evidence of the Aixone inscription is certainly consonant with and probably supports the traditional distinction. The recipients of the holocausts at Aixone — Hagne Theos (whether she is Demeter or Persephone), the hero Paralos,51 and the hero Archegetes and the other heroes, are all indubitably chthonian on the traditional view. In the earlier clause of the inscription quoted above a Heroine receives banquet-offerings, but these are almost certainly sacrifices at a festival Heroinia. Heroic recipients often receive banquet-offerings — indeed it is the relative rarity of holocausts for heroes that has hitherto struck most scholars (see n. 53) — and I have argued that this is because of the ambivalence of heroes as sources both of curses and of blessings. On a given occasion, it is perfectly legitimate to engage in celebratory sacrifice for a hero, and a festival Heroinia will be just such an occasion.52 The new inscription is welcome and important evidence that heroes could customarily be recipients of holocaust offerings,53 and so strongly supports the validity of a distinction between Olympian and chthonian sacrificial practice.54

35This brief text, then, not only provides us with important new facts but by undermining easy, traditional assumptions gives wide scope for fresh investigation and speculation. Greek sacrificial norms are for us elusive things, and it is salutary to be reminded by a few lines of a fragmentary inscription that we must keep our minds open.

Notes

1 G. Steinhauer, “ερς νόμος Αξωνέων”, in A.P. Matthaiou (ed.), ττιϰα πιγραφαί: Πραϰτιϰὰ Συμποσίου ες Μνήμην Adolf Wilhelm, Athens, 2004, p. 155-173, superseding the standard editions of the upper half of the stone, IG II2, 1356 and LSCG, 28. A small fragment of the beginning of the new, lower part of the inscription was published by A.P. Matthaiou, “Αξωνιϰά”, Horos 10-12 (1992-1998), p. 133-169, at p. 135-139 = SEG 46, 173.

2 LSCG, 28, 5-9, in Steinhauer’s edition (n. 1).

3 A rare and difficult term: LSJ s.v. δεισία, P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Paris, 1983, p. 259, and H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Worterbuch I, Heidelberg, 1960, p. 359 all regard it as an accusative plural form of a feminine noun δεισία, which best suits the syntax of the text, rather than the nominative of δεισιάς, the form glossed by Hesychius as meaning “portion” or “double portion”: δεισιάδα· τν μοῖραν, ο δ διμοιρίαν.

4 Again difficult, but perhaps the hinder portion of one flank, between the lowest ribs and the hip-socket? The same section is named (as πλευρὸν σχίον) at SEG 35, 113, 5 and 21-2 = NGSL 3, 5 and 21-2; see Lupu’s note in NGSL, p. 165.

5 Or possibly “half-kraira of tripe”; the word χορδή can mean either, but finished sausage seems a rather likelier perquisite than raw tripe. For use of the blood of sacrifices see G. Ekroth, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults, Liège, 2002 (Kernos, suppl. 12), p. 245-251, who gathers examples of the distribution of blood products after sacrifices at p. 247 n. 143; they are prescribed as perquisites at LSAM, 44, 12; LSCG, 151 A 52 (f LSCG, 156 A 29). L. Ziehen, Leges Graecorum Sacrae II, Leipzig, 1906, 81 translates “pars maxillae farcimine completa”, i.e. thinks of an actual half-head stuffed with sausage. The term μίϰραιρα can mean “half-head” but also (like Greek words for “jaw”) “cheek”; a priestly perquisite newly attested on Chios, γνάθον εώνυμον, is probably a “left cheek”, as also the μίϰραιρἀριστερά mentioned among ερώσυνα at Amipsias fr. 7 (ed. Kassel-Austin), ap. Ath. 368e: see R. Parker, “Sale of a Priesthood on Chios”, in G. Malouchou, A.P. Matthaiou (eds.), Χιαϰν Συμπόσιον ες Μνήμην W.G. Forrest, Athens, 2006, p. 67-79, line 11 of the inscription with Parker’s notes, p. 76-77. C. Austin and S.D. Olson, Aristophanes: Thesmophoriazusae, Oxford, 2004, p. 129 on Thesm. 227 translate τν μίϰραιραν τν τέραν (which it is envisaged Kinsman might leave unshaven) as “one of your two cheeks”, but they suggest that μίϰραιρα can by extension mean simply “haf” and translate the phrase μίϰραιρα ταϰερὰ δέλφαϰος in Crobylus fr. 6 (ed. Kassel-Austin) as “a tender half of a young pig” and μίϰραιρα χορδς in our inscription as “half the sausage”. This is attractive if very bold (especially in the case of Crobylus, where the word probably means “cheek” as in Amipsias and the Chian inscription). My own translation reflects a guess that μίϰραιρα means a “half-measure” of some kind, but Austin and Olson may be right; the genitive χορδς is natural on either of these interpretations, as it is not on Ziehen’s.

6 The ϰα is added in the space between entries, and the two deltas that go with it between the lines; so too ϰα:Δ above Γ. These must represent increases in the fees.

7 Steinhauer, l.c. (n. 1), p. 164 favours Kore, citing Pausanias, IV, 33, 4 on the cult of Hagne (Kore) at Andania in Messenia (for which there is also first-century-B.C. epigraphical attestation: IG V 1, 1390, 84 = Syll?, 736, 84), but the same epithet is applied to Kore/Persephone at Homer, Odyssey XI, 386 and Hom. Hymn Dem. 2, 337. There is, however, rather better evidence for Hagne as a cultic epithet of Demeter: see Hesiod, Erga, 465; Hom. Hymn Dem., 2, 203, 439; [Archilochus], fr. spur. 322 (ed. West); Moschion, TrGF 97 fr. 6, 24 (ed. Snell); IG XII 1, 780, 2. D. Ackermann, “Rémunération des prêtres et déroulement des cultes dans un dème de l’Attique”, LEC 75 (2007), p. 111-137, at p. 116 n. 19 prefers Artemis, suggesting that male and female priests point to initiation. This seems to me arbitrary — Demeter and Kore too had priests of both sexes — and much less likely, but not impossible.

8 This must I think be the right translation, “anywhere among the herod” = “at any herood”, cf. the Salaminioi inscription, LSS, 19, 39-41: νέμειν δὲ τοῖς ἱερεῦσι ϰαὶ ταῖς - | ερείαις ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ὅπο ἂν ϰαστοι ἱερῶντ-| αι μερίδα παρϰατέρων, “let there be given a portion by each party to the priests and the priestesses in the shrines in which each officiates”. The idiom may only have been used in the plural, in part because the singular ἐν ἡρώωι πο would be more susceptible to misunderstanding (“anywhere within a herootn”) than the plural; the Salaminioi parallel, where singulars were notionally possible, perhaps supports this suggestion.

9 Steinhauer, l.c. (n. 1), p. 164 concludes that the sacrifices in this part of the inscription are ναγίσματα or λόϰαυστα for chthonian divinities, and also suggests (p. 165) that the larger quantity of wood was required for holocaust sacrifice. Ackermann, l.c. (n. 7), p. 128 with n. 60 argues on the basis of roughly contemporary evidence that 3 dr. would buy one to two talents of wood, which she claims would suffice only for the sacrifice of a single sheep or goat; she concludes that the purchase of larger wood is recompensed here because it is only in the case of Hagnê Theos that the officiants must themselves procure it. These figures seem slightly inaccurate: the key evidence is IG II2, 1672, 119-129 (329 b.c.), where it is stated explicitly (125) that a talent of firewood costs 1 dr. 3 obols; the allowance at Aixone, on this parallel, would pay for 2 talents of wood. Nevertheless the estimate that one to two talents of wood would be needed to immolate a sheep or goat seems reasonable: see also the more detailed treatment of K Clinton, “Pigs in Greek Rituals”, in R. Hägg, B. Alroth (eds.), Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian, Stockholm, 2005, p. 167-179, at 170-171. We know too little, however, to feel confident about any conclusion. Prices may well have varied widely by size and type of wood, from place to place, and over time, and we therefore cannot know whether the 3 dr. spent at Aixone would have bought enough wood for the immolation of a single victim or of two or more. As all the priests at Aixone except that of Dionysos Anthios are compensated for the purchase of smaller wood it seems natural to infer that they were also responsible for purchasing any larger wood that was needed. It may be that a “standard” altar-fire could serve either for the roasting of splanchna on hand-held spits (a less efficient use of fuel) or for incineration of a whole, cut-up animal (a much more efficient use), and that larger wood was needed only when more than one victim was to be incinerated, but this too is of course speculative.

10 S. Scullion, “Heroic and Chthonian Sacrifice: New Evidence from Selinous”, ZPE 132 (2000), p. 163-171, at p. 166.

11 1 had discussed the Hebrew parallels, in a different connection, at S. Scullion, “Olympian and Chthonian”, ClAnt 13 (1994), p. 75-119, atp. 101-102.

12 See e.g. B. Bergquist, Herakles on Thasos, Uppsala, 1973, p. 71-72.

13 LSCG, 151A, 32-35 = P.J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323 B.C., Oxford, 2003, p. 298-307, no. 62, A, 32-35.

14 The verb ϰαρποῦν indicates a holocaust: see P. Stengel, Opferbràuche der Griechen, Leipzig, 1910, p. 166-168; LSAM, p. 49-50 for a collection of occurrences.

15 Rhodes & Osborne, o.c. (n. 13), p. 301 translate “when they have washed the intestines they burn them beside the altar”, but I prefer to take παρὰ τὸμ βωμὸν with ϰπλύναντες: see n. 17 below.

16 Stengel, o.c. (n. 14), p. 90 n. 2 asserted boldly that the passage “beweist, dass bei allen Holokausta das getôtete Tier nicht sofort mit Haut und Haar verbrannt wurde, sondern die σπλάγχνα vorher herausgenommen wurden”. So far as I am aware, no one has since accepted or even referred to this claim.

17 LSCG, 9, a fifth-century-B.c. Attic inscription: Τντερχ-1 σο ϰλύζετ[ε] | ϰα τν ν-| θον νίζετε. G. Nemeth, “Μεδνθον γβαλεν: Regulations Concerning Everyday Life in a Greek Temenos”, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence, Stockholm, 1994, p. 59-64, at 63-64 argues, largely on this basis, that it was standard practice to clean intestines outside the sanctuary, but the word χσο is a very spare brachylogy for “outside of the sanctuary” and the word order is odd if χσο is meant to go with both clauses. I wonder therefore whether χσο ϰλύζετε is a more emphatic analogue to ϰπλύναντες: “Rinse out the intestines and clean away the ordure”, that is rinse the intestines out(ward) from their inside. The Coan text does not suggest that the intestines are removed from the sanctuary, cleaned, and then returned, and the phrase παρὰ τὸμ βωμὸν is probably governed by ϰπλύναντες rather than by ϰαρπῶντι. Word order certainly favours this construction and so, I think, does sense. If they are to be offered to the god at all (as ϰαρπῶντι shows they were), why should the cleansed intestines be burnt on a separate fire? It may be then that cleaning was normally done at a short remove from the altar, perhaps in containers of water which were emptied outside the sanctuary.

18 FGrH 43 F 3 ap. Plut., Quaest. conv, 694a-b, cf. Ekroth o.c. (n. 5), p. 224 with n. 43. I am grateful to Gunnel Ekroth for drawing my attention to this passage.

19 I am grateful to Robert Parker for reminding me of this passage. When Metrodorus (previous note) says θύουσι Βουβρώστει ταῦρον μέλανα ϰαὶ ϰαταϰόψαντες αὐτόδορον ὁλοϰαυτοῦσιν his use of the word αὐτόδορον rather implies that one would normally expect the hide to be removed.

20 ‘Olah, Leviticus 1:3-17; 6:8-13 [= 6:1-6 in the Hebrew numeration]; 7:8. Minchah, Lev. 2:116; 6:14-18 [6:7-11]; 7:9-10. Zebach shelamim, Lev. 3:1-17; 7:11-21; 7:28-36. Chattat, Lev. 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30 [6:17-23]. ‘Asham, Lev. 5:14-6:7 [5:14-26]; 7:1-7, 9-10. See also Philo Judaeus, De specialibus legibusI, 29-30 (145-151) and Josephus, AntiquitatesJudaicaelV, 4, 4 (70-75).

21 Scullion, le (n. 11), p. 98-112.

22 Chattat: Leviticus 6:26 [6:19 in the Hebrew numeration]; minchah: 6:16 [6:9]; ‘asham: 7:6; see also Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae IV, 4, 4 (75).

23 I quote the translation of J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, New York, 1991 (Anchor Bible 3), p. 133, but for the sake of clarity substitute the Hebrew term ‘olah for the usual English translation “burnt offering”.

24 Transl. Milgrom, o.c. (n. 22), p. 380. In his note, p. 411, Milgrom argues that “a person’s ‘olah’ means “a layman’s ‘olah”, that is that the verse excludes an offering made on the priests own behalf, of which even the hide would be burnt, just as is the whole of a priests minchah (Lev. 6:22 [6:15]); contrast e.g. B. Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus, Philadelphia, 1989, p. 41 ad loc., who like most commentators does not draw this inference.

25 See E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II (English version revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black), Edinburgh, 1979, p. 299, n. 23 for the Mishnaic sources.

26 The parallel was noted by R.K. Yerkes, Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and in Early Judaism, New York, 1952, p. 138.

27 Philo Judaeus, De specialibus legibus I, 30 (151).

28 See D. Pardee, “A Punic Sacrificial Tariff”, in W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture I, Leiden, 1997, p. 305-309, atp. 306, n. 11. Kalil= ‘olah: Deut. 33:10, I Sam. 7:9, Ps. 51:21

29 This, the shlm kll offering, seems to be equivalent, also etymologically, to Hebrew (zebach) shelamim, of which almost the whole goes to the donor for use; see Pardee, l.c. (n. 28), p. 306, n. 13.

30 The text, discovered in Marseilles but very probably from Carthage, is Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, I, 165 = H. Donner, W. Röllig (eds.), Kanaanaische und Aramàische Inschriften, Wiesbaden, 19662, no. 69 = NGSL, Appendix A, p. 391-396. I quote lines 3-4 in the translation of Pardee, l.c. (n. 28), p. 306-307. Subsequent lines of the inscription deal with other kinds of offerings. There are doubts about the meanings of the words in the final clause that Pardee translates “lower part of the legs”, “ (leg-)joints”, “ribs”, and “feet”: see Pardee’s notes, p. 307.

31 The text, from Carthage, is Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, I, 167 = Donner, Röllig (eds.), o.c. (n. 30), no. 74. I quote lines 2 and 4 in the translation of G.A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, Oxford, 1903, p. 123. The word kll, “whole-offerings” is restored in this text by analogy with the Marseilles inscription (n. 30).

32 Pardee, l.c. (n. 28), p. 306, n. 11, though in the second inscription I quote the offerer does take meat from a whole offering if Donner, Röllig, o.c. (n. 30), p. 92 are right to guess that the words left untranslated by Cooke mean “the rest” (“das Ubrige”) in verse 2 and “the ribs” (“die Rippen”) in verse 4.

33 There is a detailed and helpful discussion of these matters in Schurer, o.c. (n. 25), p. 25774, whose revisers broadly accept the influential conclusions of J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Edinburgh, 1885 (trans. of Geschichte Israels, 1883), p. 1-159. Milgrom, o.c. (n. 23), 3-35 (with further references) rejects Wellhausen’s view in favour of a pre-exilic date for P, but see e.g. B. Levine, o.c. (n. 24), p. xxv-xxx or (more briefly) id., s.v. “Leviticus, Book of, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4, New York, 1992, p. 311-321, at p. 318-321, for summary and defence (with further references) of the consensus based on Wellhausen, which to my inexpert mind seems better founded. Later tradition regarded the Levitical perquisites as applying to cultic sacrifices, the Deuteronomic to animals slaughtered for private consumption: Philo Judaeus, De specialibuslegibusI, 29 (147); Josephus, AntiquitatesJudaicaelV, 4, 4 (74).

34 LSS, 63.

35 Scullion, l.c. (n. 10), to which I refer readers for more detailed discussion and doxology. See now also E. J. Stafford, “Héraklès: encore et toujours le problème du heros-theo/’, Kernos 18 (2005), p. 391-406.

36 Heracles on Thasos, second attestation: IG XII, Suppl. 353, 10; Tritopatores and Zeus Meilichios at Selinus: SEG, XLIII, 630 = NGSL, 27, 9-12, 17-20; Semele on Mykonos: LSCG, 96, 23-24; Heracles at Sicyon: Pausanias II, 10, 1; Heracles at Miletus: LSAM, 42; Hermes at Athens: Aristophanes, Plutus 1128.

37 B. Bergquist, “A re-study of two Thasian instances of ένατεύειν”, in HäggAlroth (eds.), o.c. (n. 9), p. 61-70.

38 Bergquist, o.c. (n. 12), p. 71-2.

39 LSCG, 18, Γ, 8-12; Δ, 8-12.

40 Cf. LSCG, 151, D, 16-17.

41 Mykonos: LSCG, 96, 22-26; Erchia: LSCG, 18, A, 19-22; A, 46-51; Δ, 35-40; E, 3-8; cf. Scullion, l.c. (n. 10), p. 165-167.

42 P.G.W. Glare (ed.), LSJ Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement, Oxford, 1996 tentatively defines an adverb δαιτηί in the fifth-century inscription ICIV, 51, 13 as “without distinction”, and an adjective νδαιτος in the sense “divided anew/redistributed” occurs in a fourth-century B.C. inscription of Issa in Corcyra, Syll?, 141, 11. Cf. also δαιθμός and νδαιθμός (the latter new to the Revised Supplement).

43 H. Lloyd-Jones, “Aeschylus, Agamemnon 416ff. ” [sic: 146ff.], CQ n.s. 3 (1953), p. 96 notes that there is no parallel for the usual understanding of the phrase: “I can find in Aeschylus no case of two adjectives formed with privative alpha and agreeing with the same noun in which the two concepts negated are not concepts of the same order. In other words, it is odd that after calling the sacrifice νομον, ‘nefandum’, the poet should subjoin a further epithet which simply indicates that the usual sacrificial dinner did not take place”. Lloyd-Jones suggests that the sense of νομον is “without music”, comparing Agamemnon 1141-2 (where, however, the verb θροεῖς is an essential prompt to the musical sense of νόμον νομον and the meaning is the natural one, “discordant”). The link between the two adjectives is however closer — the second adding precision to the first — if δαιτον means “undivided”, and an “undivided” sacrifice now turns out to be much more anomalous (and is also more grimly restrained in expression) than a sacrifice “contrary to custom, without banquet” or “without music, without banquet”.

44 F.T. van Straten, Hierà Kalá. Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece, Leiden, 1995, p. 157-158, who identifies and reproduces as his Figure 168 “one good example”, which does not depict a victim burning whole.

45 The osphus burning in the flames is a favourite motif of the vase painters, but that is doubtless because the tail can be depicted rising through and above the flames.

46 See van Straten, o.c. (n. 44), p. 154 and 4-5. S. Peirce, “Death, Revelry, and Thjsia”, ClAnt 12 (1993), p. 219-266 makes a strong case for Greek depiction of sacrifice as predominan-tly joyous and celebratory, and it might be thought that we should therefore expect holocaust sacrifice not to be depicted at all. Peirce, however, primarily (and rightly) contests the notion that Greeks felt guilty about animal sacrifice, and it does not seem to me to follow from her discussion that, because holocaust did not involve banqueting, it will therefore not have been depicted, even if images of participatory sacrifice, which was both celebratory and “normal”, were naturally far more common.

47 Milgrom, o.c. (n. 23), p. 157 on Lev. 1:6.

48 Holocaust sacrifices — prodiguas hostiae — are known only in connection with the secular games, offered Achivo ntu, “according to the Greek rite” to underworld gods; Zosimus, II, 5, 3 describes them as burnt whole: see K. Latte, Romische Religionsgeschichte, Munich, 1960, 392 with n. 1; cf. G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Ramer, Munich, 19122, p. 418-420, esp. p. 418 n. 2, p. 420 n. 1.

49 Scullion, l.e (n. 11).

50 Most fully, with reference to heroic sacrifice, by Ekroth, o.c. (n. 5), p. 310-334; see also HäggAlroth (eds.), o.c. (n. 9).

51 Paralos is a well-attested Athenian hero, connected with the sea: see E. Kearns, The Heroes of Attica, London, 1989 (BICS Suppl. 57), p. 42, 193.

52 Scullion, l.c. (n. 11), p. 89-92.

53 R. Parker, “ς ρωι ναγίζειν”, in HäggAlroth (eds.), o.c. (n. 9), p. 37-45 notes (p. 40) that “if we look at those [Attic] sacrificial calendars which explicitly indicate that certain offerings are ‘to be burnt (whole)’, we find that only 4 out of some 39 animal victims for heroes or heroines are marked for burning. Thus the practice presented by Herodotus [2.44] as a distinctive mark of a hero-cult appears in fact to be very uncommon”. The new text changes the picture significantly, not so much by the number of holocausts it prescribes as because it attests holocaust as a common (and probably the predominant) mode of heroic sacrifice in this deme — assuming, as is highly likely, that this is a deme decree.

54 Ackermann, l.c. (n. 7), p. 131-132 (with reference to earlier contributions to the debate) has come independently to the same conclusion.

Notes de fin

1 The following abbreviations are used: LSAM: Fr. SOKOLOWSKI, Lois sacrees de l’Asie mineure, Paris, 1955; LSCG: id., Lois sacrees des cites grecques, Paris, 1969; LSS: id., Lois sacrees des cites grecques. Supplement, Paris, 1962; NGSL: E. LUPU, Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents, Leiden, 2005. I am grateful to Prof. Robert Parker (who is at work on a study of the text) and Dr Gunnel Ekroth for very helpful comments on a draft, and to Ms Delphine Ackermann for sending me a copy of her forthcoming paper (see n. 7 below).

Auteur

Worcester College
Oxford OX1 2HB
E-mail: scott.scullion@worc.ox.ac.uk

© Presses universitaires de Liège, 2009

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search