Sources on Sacrifice

For those of you interested in ancient history or archaeology, the following may be relevant to your interests:

New research has tendency to be over-hyped. A recent study of a Carthaginian infant burial site (a Tophet) has refuted the proposition by some scholars that all the infants buried at Tophets were sacrificed (here is the article). Osteological analysis of the remains of infants has shown that 20 percent of those found died before birth, and thus could not have been sacrificed. It seems more likely that Tophets were used as more general burial sites.

However, this does little to refute the general historical evidence for child sacrifice at Carthage. Kleitarchos, Diodorus, the Old Testament, and some inscriptions all support child sacrifice at Carthage. Schwartz, the author of the article, rightly limits his conclusions: "Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants." However, as so often happens, studies limited in scope are taken too far. One article has gone so far as to declare that Schwarts' research refutes "millennia-long claims of mass infant sacrifice in ancient Carthage." This just isn't the case. Nothing says that all of those children buried died of natural causes. Moreover, some sacrifices could have been buried elsewhere. Writers in the media and university have a responsibility to remain skeptical of new claims and opinions. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to blow new research out of proportion and make sweeping claims about the past. Orthodox perspectives should not be quickly dismissed, and new research should not be overstated.

Evangelicals and Academics

Here's an interesting article on Evangelicalism in modern America. I believe that it is indicative of an underlying lack of diversity within the academic community. Conservative Christian academics are a dying breed. As the author acknowledges, most professors, even of religion, are completely unfamiliar with the religious identity of millions of modern Americans. Even the author of the article (Timothy Beal) ascribes to the liberal dogma of academe (notice his description of the Bible as "an accidental book"). Contrary to this article's suggestion, no mere article or book will bridge the fundamental gap between academia and conservative Christianity. If Evangelicals truly want to be understood, they themselves must penetrate the ivory tower of academia. Until underrepresented groups finally gain their own voices in the liberal world of the American university, they will remain strangers and foes of academics.