Ancient Babylon: Did they really practice public deflowering of virgins via ritualized sex in the name of some goddess?

Other kinds of activities associated with procreation were certainly and explicitly connected with the temple and with ritual - importantly, childbirth and midwifery. The word qadishtu 'holy woman' (describing a type of priestess performing these duties) seems to underlie the Hebrew word (qedesha) that is used in Hosea 4 and Genesis 38, the two main passages previously thought to allude to sacred prostitution. However, according to the available evidence, the qadishtu did not provide sexual services but rather was a kind of temple-employed midwife.

I'm not sure this makes sense in context. Look back at Genesis 38--why would Judah, a single man, need a "temple-employed midwife"? And why would he then sleep with this midwife?

Let's just put the bulk of the story of Judah and Tamar in front of us in NRSV so that we're on the same page. Prostitute in italics is qedesha, which is a female form based on from the same root (Q-D-SH) that gives us "kodesh" (holy) as in aron kodesh/qodesh (the holy ark where Torahs are stored in a synagogue) and kaddish, a type of Jewish prayer most famously said by mourners. So we know this word means holy and is female, but from context there is zero evidence that she was a "temple-employed midwife" rather than a "temple prostitute". For those reading along at home, the important context for this story is Levirate Marriage, where Judah's son married Tamar but died before producing an heir (two actually) and it's his family's responsibility to give her another brother in marriage so that she may produce an heir. Tamar comes up with an ingenious solution to this problem.

Then Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep,” 14 she put off her widow’s garments, put on a veil, wrapped herself up, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. She saw that Shelah was grown up, yet she had not been given to him in marriage. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 He went over to her at the roadside, and said, “Come, let me come in to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?” 17 He answered, “I will send you a kid from the flock.” And she said, “Only if you give me a pledge, until you send it.” 18 He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” She replied, “Your signet and your cord, and the staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. 19 Then she got up and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood.

20 When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to recover the pledge from the woman, he could not find her. 21 He asked the townspeople, “Where is the temple prostitute who was at Enaim by the wayside?” But they said, “No prostitute has been here.” 22 So he returned to Judah, and said, “I have not found her; moreover the townspeople said, ‘No prostitute has been here.’” 23 Judah replied, “Let her keep the things as her own, otherwise we will be laughed at; you see, I sent this kid, and you could not find her.”

24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” 25 As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “It was the owner of these who made me pregnant.” And she said, “Take note, please, whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff.” 26 Then Judah acknowledged them and said, “She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not lie with her again.

27 When the time of her delivery came, there were twins in her womb.

So, "to go into" someone or "to come into" someone is one of the standard biblical euphemism for sex, as is "to lie with" (not the "again"). From their encounter they produced an heir for Tamar, which Judah then acknowledges. They even negotiate a price. I don't see how, based on this story, one could assume you're talking about a midwife and not a someone who provides sexual services.

The scene in Hosea is less clear, but I think the context still screams "prostitution":

Therefore your daughters play the whore, and your daughters-in-law commit adultery. 14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with whores, and sacrifice with temple prostitutes; thus a people without understanding comes to ruin.

The "whore" stuff is not from Q-D-SH but from Z-N-H, the normal word for prostitution for example is תִּזְנֶ֙ינָה֙/tiznenāh. But the word translated here as "temple prostitute" is "הַקְּדֵשׁ֖וֹת/haqqəḏêšōwṯ". Again, notice the Q-D-SH in the middle (the ha- is an article, the -ot at the end makes it a famine plural). But even ignoring the the whole story of Judah where he clearly exchanges a lamb for sex, you're basically arguing that the association between the qedeshot and zonot, "temple prostitutes" and "prostitutes", is a coincidentally one. Is it also a coincidence that they're side by side in Deuteronomy 23:17-18?

I am not fully convinced by this explanation as it seems to fly in the face of the text. You present this like this is the consensus position, but who has accepted this position? At best, it's a minority position. It's certainly not the position of the boards translating NSRV or NIV or any of the other translations commonly used by academics that I'm aware of.

I know less about Near Eastern sacred prostitution generally, but I also don't think there's as clear consensus that it never existed as you say. Doesn't Eusebius say that his contemporary Constantine ended it at the last two Roman Temples that still practiced it. Describing the Temple of Aphaca (chapter 55):

It was a school of wickedness for all the votaries of impurity, and such as destroyed their bodies with effeminacy. Here men undeserving of the name forgot the dignity of their sex, and propitiated the demon by their effeminate conduct; here too unlawful commerce of women and adulterous intercourse, with other horrible and infamous practices, were perpetrated in this temple as in a place beyond the scope and restraint of law.

And the temple at Heliopolis [Baalbek] (chapter 58):

Such actions as I have described may well be reckoned among the emperor's noblest achievements, as also the wise arrangements which he made respecting each particular province. We may instance the Phoenician city Heliopolis, in which those who dignify licentious pleasure with a distinguishing title of honor, had permitted their wives and daughters to commit shameless fornication. But now a new statute, breathing the very spirit of modesty, proceeded from the emperor, which peremptorily forbade the continuance of former practices. And besides this he sent them also written exhortations, as though he had been especially ordained by God for this end, that he might instruct all men in the principles of chastity.

Since he didn't shut down prostitution elsewhere in the Empire, presumably there was something different here and though not as explicit here, I believe almost everyone assumes this is about a "Temple of Venus" there, or at least that's how it's titled in this old translation of the text I could find online--I don't know if those division and titles are original to Eusebius or due to later redactors. It's probably worth noting that both the temples where Eusebius reports that Constantine ended temple prostitutions are found in the neighborhood of Israel: both Aphaca and Baalbek/Heliopolis are in modern Lebanon.

But, to sum up, you're making claims here (there wasn't really temple prostitution and qedesha doesn't mean temple prostitution) that don't seem to jibe with plain readings of the available texts, or what I was taught in the Hebrew Bible component of my undergraduate religious studies programs I did 15 years after your most recent citation. There are certainly some people who try to explain away this story (it is a difficult one), but they seem to be in the minority small minority. As far as I can tell, your argument is in the minority of a minority: I believe the more common way to explain away Temple Prostitution is to argue that qedesha and zonah are synonyms used interchangeably, and we should just ignore the obvious etymology of qedesha or explain it away with something less convincing (I believe Rashi does this, for example). Now, I'm not going to venture further afield into Babylon and such because it's a topic I haven't thought about since survey courses as an undergrad more than a decade ago, but I find the cores parts of your arguments based on Greek and Hebrew sources to be very unconvincing and seemingly polemical (that said, I probably do agree with your assessment that it's unlikely such a ritual actually existed, even if I do believe that there was at least nominally ritualized temple prostitution).

Ping: /u/serendipity12x

/r/AskHistorians Thread Parent