Another Biblical Myth Smashed

Did Canaanites really regularly practice child sacrifice?

The Torah strongly condemns what it believed was the Canaanite and general regional preference for child sacrifice:

And you shall not let any of your seed pass through l'Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.…Again, you shall say to the Sons of Israel: Whoever he be of the Sons of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed l'Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has given of his seed l'Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed l'Molech, and do not kill him, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, whoring l'Molech from among the people.

––Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2-5.

Most of us have learned midrashim and aggadata that echo and expand on this theme.

The bottom line is that these neighbors of the Hebrew people killed their children to please their gods, especially Molech – or did they?

A new study refutes these Biblical and rabbinic claims.

Studying child remains found in Carthage, a Canaanite-founded outpost on the North African Mediterranean shore, researchers concluded that:

"Our study emphasizes that historical scientists must consider all evidence when deciphering ancient societal behavior," Schwartz said. "The idea of regular infant sacrifice in Carthage is not based on a study of the cremated remains, but on instances of human sacrifice reported by a few ancient chroniclers, inferred from ambiguous Carthaginian inscriptions, and referenced in the Old Testament. Our results show that some children were sacrificed, but they contradict the conclusion that Carthaginians were a brutal bunch who regularly sacrificed their own children."

…Schwartz and his colleagues conclude that the high incidence of prenate and infant mortality are consistent with modern data on stillbirths, miscarriages, and infant death.

In other words, as Science Daily notes under the headline, Study Debunks Millennia-Old Claims of Systematic Infant Sacrifice in Ancient Carthage:

An examination of the remains of Carthaginian children revealed that most infants perished prenatally or very shortly after birth and were unlikely to have lived long enough to be sacrificed.

Indeed, it is possible – and this is my own conjecture – that ancient Canaanites viewed still births and infants who died of natural causes shortly after birth as acts of the gods. The gods wanted the "sacrifice" of these children and "took" them just before or closely after birth.

 

It may be that the cremation of these tiny bodies, as opposed to normal burial for older children and adults, was the human act of "completing" the "sacrifice" initiated by the gods.

In other words, the child sacrifice attributed to the Canaanites may have been almost entirely symbolic because the almost all of the victims "sacrificed" were stillborn or died from natural causes shortly after birth.

[Hat Tip: HaNavon.]

Comments

[R]

Or maybe they only sacrificed children when things got very bad, so they felt the animals or food or whatever wasn't doing the trick, so sacrificing a child was the last resort.

[jake]

"Our results show that some children were sacrificed, but they contradict the conclusion that Carthaginians were a brutal bunch who regularly sacrificed their own children."

[Zohar]

Shmarya, you are mistaken.

The aqeidah should be understood as an anti-child sacrifice polemic. Also, several other places in Tanach. If "we" were doing so, there is no reason to suppose that "they" weren't.

[As I see it]

or maybe looking at less then 1000 bodies is not a sufficient sample to conclude anything. but lets examine a more relevant topic. maybe handing over your child to cult or so called leader blindly, is the modern-day 'molach'

[ted]

The Mayans and Aztecs offered human
sacrifices. Was this done everyday ?
More than likely not. I'm sure depending
on the occasion,the Cannanities,others
did offer children sacrifices.
This pratice also influenced the acient
Israelities too,based on the Books
of the Hbrew Prophets.

[Nachum]

I have no idea how you derive your headline from the article, nor your own theory from it. Carthage, by the way, is in Africa, and while the Carthaginians were descendants of Phoenicians/Canaanites, their practices tell us very little about what actually happened in Canaan.

In any event, the Torah never said it was widespread, just that it was practiced. And no one argues with that.

[Successful Messiah]

Scotty, you really are a silly person. This is what you call a refutation of the biblical verses? Let me try to lay this out for you in a manner that is really simple so that even you can understand.

1. The study in question relates to Carthage, not the area formerly known as Canaan.

2. Carthage was reportedly founded by Phoenicians which is just one of the groups that populated the area known as Canaan. "Phoenicia" is a term that was founded after the Jews conquered Israel and usually refers to the unconquered portion of the Canaan. While your bible skills may be a bit rusty, you may recall that Canaan consisted of seven nations (and since you don't believe in the bible, I will also point out that there it is generally accepted among historians that Canaan was populated by more than one nation) and in reality each one of those nations had multiple sub-cultures. The bible does not indicate which one of those nations practiced child sacrifices or how prevalent it was among the different sub-cultures.

3. Carthage was founded a couple of hundred years after the time frame addressed in the Bible's reference to child sacrifices. The existence of child sacrifices among a sub-set of the residents of Canaan that emigrated to Carthage a couple of hundred years later does not prove or disprove any biblical accounts.

4. The study in question is addressing accusations in a number of historical works that the Phoenicians living in Carthage a couple of hundred years after the time frame referenced in the bible performed child sacrifice. It makes no attempt to, nor does it purport to, infer anything as to the veracity of the biblical accounts of the practices of a group that may have been their ancecestors a couple of hundred years earlier.

5. While not relevant to completely refute your conclusion, I note that even within Carthage the study was of urns found in or around identified ancient cemeteries. Any conclusions from that study is based on the assumption that the remains of the victims of the purported child sacrifices in Carthage were buried in those locations. That is a question that the study makes no attempt to address. It is merely responding to speculation that those urns contain the remains of victims of child sacrifices, which speculation has certainly been called into doubt based on this study.

In short, the only irrefutable proof we have here is that you are a moron.

[Isaac]

Fwiw, most academic bible scholars today do not see the Akedah as a repudiation of child sacrifice, although it has certainly been read that way in the history of Judaism (see, most famously, Ta'anit 4a, and Rav Kook in Olat Reiyah).

[Lisa]

Seriously, this is kind of lame. I mean, some former Phoenicians in Carthage may not have regularly murdered babies, so we can infer that the Torah was wrong about it happening in Canaan?

This really comes across as an attempt to bend over backwards to bash Judaism, Shmarya. Is that what you intended?

[effie]

The Mayans and Aztecs offered human
sacrifices. Was this done everyday ?
More than likely not.

Oh, no, they did.

[PishPosh]

"The Mayans and Aztecs offered human
sacrifices. Was this done everyday ?
More than likely not.

Oh, no, they did."

That and play soccer with the heads, or was that another Civ?

[Aharon Varady]

I would also disagree with your thesis, Shmarya. Midrash aggadah aside, child sacrifice is a strong theme in the Torah, as seen most obviously in both the story of the Akeidah, in the redemption of the first born, and in the declaration of the prophets railing against alternate folk practices. You might be interested in this book by Jon D. Levinson -- The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (1995, Yale University Press). While practices in and around ancient Carthage (modern day Libya and Tunisia) may not have included child sacrifice, the sacrificial practices in the Levant and Judea are another story. The likelihood is that child sacrifice was practiced by our ancient Israelite ancestors and that this activity required harsh criticism and an exile in Babylonia before it became present only as a literary and mythic theme.

[Levi]

Gentleman: the context here follows the failure to substantiate any such sacrifice in the Levantine archaeological record. Following this failure, Carthage was excavated and these bodies discovered. A biblical scholar tried to draw a connection to bible based on an 'lmlk' inscription. As you may or may not be aware, this word means 'king', although Jews pronounce it differently to distinguish. Whether this is a general category or a specific deity cannot be ascertained as is the case with 'ashtrt' as in the pottery shard drawing of "yhwh washtrtw" or "yahweh and his ashtarte". Also you people fail to understand sacrifice on its own terms as a voluntary offering to show generosity and respect, gain respect and prestige, as well as reciprocate for prior gifts by the deity.

Aside for the bible, which no sane person accepts as historically valid prima facie, the only evidence for child sacrifice by Caananites is this Carthaginian site, this is why the study is significant. If you downplay the Levantine connection, then the original study is no good either, which leaves you back at square 1: there is no evidence for child sacrifice in the Levant. Now lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but when an area has been excavated as thoroughly as Israel has, it is a strong suggestion thereof.

[who knows?]

Shmarya, I think your conclusions are wrong. Also they are based on wrong facts.

The modern historians agree that that Phoenicians and Carthagenians are subgroups of the same people. However, they also agree that Phoenicians are NOT Canaanites. Phoenician subgroup called Philistines invaded Canaan from the sea at approximatele the same time as Israelis invaded it from the Eastern desert.

Philistines/Phoenicians had different gods, different customs and different language from Canaanites. It is impossible to make any conclusions about prevalence of child sacrifice among the Canaanites by the prevalence of child sacrifice among a distant group of very different people.

[Yakira]

Very intriguing article. I have already bookmarked the original page. What make the scientists think that the bible was only talking about the Carthaginians??

[Michael Makovi]

I won't waste time repeating what others have said, viz. that Caanan does not equal Carthage.

But I want to make one other point: some of the midrashim explain "passing through fire" for Moloch NOT as an act of child sacrifice, but rather, as an initiation ritual into a cult, like passing through a ring of fire.

So even if the Carthaginians didn't sacrifice humans, this says nothing about Canaan. And even if the Canaanites didn't sacrifice humans, so what? The Torah doesn't necessarily speak of human sacrifice; it's all a question of exegesis.

[SH]

Has no one looked it up?

Rashi states unequivocally that this molach form of idol worship did not physically harm the children, they were handed over to the ‘priests’ and made to walk between two bonfires, after that, they went home.

Is this a red herring, or a purim joke?

[nobody]

"Our results show that some children were sacrificed, but..."

Even one is too many.

Are you trying to justify that they "sometimes" sacrificed children, but not always, and not as a religious devotion to every child? There is something seriously wrong here.

[Paul Freedman]

It's cool then, not a brutal bunch of people, humanitarians who only "occasionally" sacrificed their kids. And this as a voluntary offering made to show respect and the humanity of the giver, well, not to the children sacrificed, of course, but to the deity.

Works for me!

[effie]

PishPosh: All the cultures in meso-America played the ball game but with a rubber ball. However, sacrifices were associated with the game and various carvings and recorded narratives depict decapitation and the use of human heads as balls. I suspect this aspect was part of the after hour celebration by the winning team. They fixed games, too. Cheaters!

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Mesoamerican_ballgame

[Shmarya]

SM – 1. The study in question relates to Carthage, not the area formerly known as Canaan.…

I understand basic reading comp is well beyond your capabilities, SM, but try to get your brain to focus and process:

The conclusion is report is the conclusion of the scientists of wrote the paper and the conclusion of Science Daily.

I make that extremely clear. Try rereading what I wrote a few times. Maybe it will penetrate.

They reach that conclusion not because they are ignorant of Biblical history, but because they know that history far better than you.

Biblical dating is rarely supported by archeology, carbon dating, and the like, and no honest scientist – as opposed to a dishonest religious apologist – cites that biblical dating as fact. But you do.

~~~~~~~~

Aharon Varady –

It's 15 to 20 year old research that doesn't reflect current findings.
~~~~~~~~~

Others –

You need to take the Torah's claims in context.

Did 3 million Jews flee Egypt?

Did a universal flood happen?

Was the world created in 6 days in the order presented in Genesis?

Is the Joshua account of the conquest of Canaan accurate?

Did the Purim story really happen?

All the answers to the above questions are the same: No.

And that is an abridged list that could be expanded to include other similar historical questions whose answers are no.

The Torah has a credibility problem. It has no hezkat kashrut, so to speak, with regard to ancient history or the cultic practices the Torah sought to replace.

[Big Jew]

Shmarya
I always knew you had it in for Chabad and Hareidim but I didn't know you were a Koifer as well. At least learn chumash Rashi so you can sound like a somewhat educated Koifer Beikar instead of an uneducated idiot. Nebach on you.

[Shmarya]

I hate to burst your bubble, Big Jew, but try to process:

Rashi is one opinion. There are others, including many that predate him., that viewed the child sacrifice as real.

[Yochanan Lavie]

For the umpteenth time, the torah is not history in the sense that Herodotus and Thucydides (and we) understand it. It is a book of moral teachings that has a small kernel of historical truth, embellished by myth and exaggeration, to make a didactic point. You don't throw the torah away just because everything in it isn't literally true, just as you don't discard Shakespeare because Bohemia has not a seacoast (Hamlet).

[zach]

The study is discussing Carthage of 3rd century BCE, not Canaan of 1000 BCE.

Sorry, Mythbusters would say "not busted".

[Yosef ben Matitya]

i don't care much about this kind of archeological assessments; often the 'scholars' adopt theories and go armed with their agenda to look for ways to prove them.
nobody knows until today if the essenes were the sect of the dead sea, and wether they were zadokites etc...
last week egyptian scholars came up with a conclusion that the builders of the pyramids were paid fat wages that can compete with with the pay of plumbers in uptown manhattan.
why? because they found evidence that somebody partook of a doz buffalo wings on the eve of the superbowl 1504 bce. i don't buy those reasonings. neither do i think they are important. another one, har karkom is har sinai, or sinai is in saudi arabia. what difference does it make?

[ad]

Whether it is true or not, really is beside the point. If there is a god, and he/she needs the sacrifice of something living as a demonstration of devotion, that god can kiss my tush!

[Big Jew]

Shmarya
The Torah has a credibility problem?! That's absurd. The Torah was written during those times. Although the Torah is not a history book it details and chronicles many events that happened in those times. Is there any other piece of literature dating back to those times? Are you telling me because some archeologist does or doesn't find something it proves anything? These archeologists are the blind following the blind. Its the same as going into your backyard, digging around, finding a piece of pottery/and making up a whole story about it based on conjecture. Archeology is myth built on conjecture built on assumptions built on mistakes built on supposition built on a shot in the dark..........archeology is to be taken with many grains of salt as they keep changing everything when they find something else. They will assume X civilization lived in X place 1000 years ago based on not finding anything older. Then 20 years later they find something 1500 years old now they have to rethink everything. Its a useless science that stands on very shaky legs.

[Successful Messiah]

"The conclusion is report is the conclusion of the scientists of wrote the paper and the conclusion of Science Daily."

Try not to dig yourself deeper into what is one of your dumber posts. The scientists who wrote the report formed one conclusion, that most of the remains they tested either died a natural death or were stillborn. They formed no conclusion about whether child sacrifices existed in Carthage, though they rightfully consider their conclusion as evidence that calls into question whether that practice existed. They certainly did not form any conclusion or claim that there is any direct evidence as to what was the case in Canaan a couple of hundred years earlier.

"Biblical dating is rarely supported by archeology, carbon dating, and the like, and no honest scientist – as opposed to a dishonest religious apologist – cites that biblical dating as fact. But you do."

What are you smoking? I make no reference to biblical dating. Regardless of who wrote the bible or when it was written, it purports to be speaking about practice that existed in Canaan during the time the Exodus occurred. While there is some dispute as to when the Exodus occurred, virtually all opinions place it, if at all, at a time that preceded the creation of Carthage by a couple of hundred years.

In short, I would suggest that you put that cannabis aside, wait for the effects to wear off and then reread your post. So long as you are not completely stoned, I think that even you will realize that you are not making any sense.

[Shmarya]

The Torah has a credibility problem?! That's absurd. The Torah was written during those times…Its the same as going into your backyard, digging around, finding a piece of pottery/and making up a whole story about it based on conjecture. Archeology is myth built on conjecture built on assumptions built on mistakes built on supposition built on a shot in the dark

Not well educated, eh?

I'll give you one simple example.

Joshua and Judges tell different stories of the "conquest" of the land.

Archaeological finds generally support the possibility the account in Judges could be correct while disproving the account in Joshua (no burn layers or visible destruction at the time Joshua was supposed to have destroyed a city, for example).

On other issues like a universal flood or the Exodus, several different disciplines disprove the Biblical story. In the case of the Flood, those disciplines include geology and other hard sciences.

[Shmarya]

Sm –

They formed no conclusion about whether child sacrifices existed in Carthage, though they rightfully consider their conclusion as evidence that calls into question whether that practice existed. They certainly did not form any conclusion or claim that there is any direct evidence as to what was the case in Canaan a couple of hundred years earlier.

Again, your difficulty with reading comprehension is, shall we say, readily apparent.

[Nach]

To Shmarya and all other atheists. Just one question: is global warming fact or fad? The holy scientists PROVED it...
Just something to think about on your free time.

[moom]

The classical Maya only occasionally sacrificed people. They did more blood sacrifices where they would make themselves bleed. The bible references Canaanites doing the same. We see Shi'ites in Lebanon doing the latter today.

The Aztecs sacrificed captives on a daily basis. I'm pretty sure they are an outlier historically.

[who knows?]

Shmarya, plaese note that neither the science article, nor your conclusions talk about exodus, conquest of Canaan, creation or other possible problems iin Torah account.

All the article says is that child sacrifice may not be as prevalent in Carthage as previously thought. You've expanded this conclusion to Canaan and then attacked Torah in general. This particular attack has no substance.

Instead of accepting that you've made a wrong conclusion in this narrow case, you expand the topic to include problems which nobody is argueing about. By doing this you are evading direct questions. Please drop this practice, since it does not add to the discussion, but spreads it to such a wide area that it becomes completely meaningless.

[Shlomo]

Didn't King Solomon introduce sacrifices to Moloch (or Chemosh) in the valley around Jerusalem (Sheol or Gehinnom)to appease the Moabites (or Ammonites) this was suppose to have lasted for 400 years even through the reigns of many righteous kings and yet I don't think any evidence survives of this except the bible.
History this long ago is shrouded in mistory and conjecture see your thread on the wall found from King Solomon's time

[Yochanan Lavie]

In the age of suicide bombers, and children soldiers (in Africa), child sacrifices are a real issue. And they're wrong, even for a god. That's the message of the miqra, despite what the Canaanites and Carthaginians did or did not do.

[Shlomo]

Also I agree with Yochanan the Bible is not a history book - you noted contradictions between the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges there are some more with the Chronicles.
Are you going to take the Song of Songs in a literal sense?

[Zev]

Scotty -

So much for your expertise in Jewish study (you always insinuate your vast knowledge of interpreting halacha...)

Dont you know what every school child learning Chumash knows - that the "molech" idol worship was NOT to kill the child! learn some basic chumash and rashi.. you are truly talented: bring on bombastic headlines with "in depth" studies of an........ AM HO'ORETZ

[Chaim7356]

Shmarya, the general thrust of historical fact found in the Torah has been independently confirmed time and again...there are so many examples that it seems silly to debate it. The flood story is not independently possible to confirm - but, beginning with the advent of the patriarchs, many archeological finds independently confirm details the Torah relates as it moves through the lives of the Avot. The names of the kings (K'darlaomer et al)that Avraham fought - in the exact order listed in the Torah - have been found elsewhere...we have 'cultic artifacts' (=idols) by the dozens that have survived that are exactly as referred to in the Torah. So much confirmation of the 'fine detail' proves - at the very least - that whoever wrote the Torah was writing contemperaneously about events that were very real. It seems very likely that whoever wrote about child sacrifice knew of it as a first-hand reality. If you want to question the existence of God, and challenge key points in the Torah, that's your perogative. Some things just can't be 'proven'. But as to what society was up to in 'Biblical times' - there's lots of proof about that, which will continue to increase as time goes by.

[Zev Meir]

Human sacrifice on the rise in Africa
http://tinyurl.com/ycls3wp

BBC Video report
http://tinyurl.com/ydqbr39

This has been going on for thousands of years in different parts of the world! learn some basic history!

[effie]

"The classical Maya only occasionally sacrificed people. They did more blood sacrifices where they would make themselves bleed."

Sure, blood letting was common but I find this latest argument that human sacrifice was rare unpersuasive.

"The Aztecs sacrificed captives on a daily basis. I'm pretty sure they are an outlier historically."

An outlier historically to who? There were human sacrifices by numerous cultures for hundreds of years, all through meso and south America.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, the general thrust of historical fact found in the Torah has been independently confirmed time and again...there are so many examples that it seems silly to debate it

Quite frankly, only a cult member, a liar or fool would claim that.

Choose your idiocy.

The flood story is not independently possible to confirm

But it is possible to disprove it and science has conclusively done so. Several different scientific disciplines independently disprove it.

As I said above, choose your idiocy.

[Paul Freedman]

wait a sec, you mean the sun did not stop in its tracks when Joshua fit de battle of Jericho. Sheeeeat!!!! Torah is a lie and Shmarya is its prophet.

[Paul Freedman]

I'm beginning to get a very ugly feeling about so-called "President" "George" "Washington" and that cherry tree.

[Paul Freedman]

To some degree it's all cheese, it's all "processed" and there are holes everywhere. The nutrition is in the bits around the holes.

[bryce]

"Did Canaanites really regularly practice child sacrifice?"

My consolation, Shmarya, is that at least you don't regularly post sloppy scholarship like this.

[Chaim7356]

Shmarya, you love to throw out the "idiot" stuff, don't you...so, one more time: there are thousands - thousands of pieces of evidence regarding the social conditions of ancient times that are entirely in accordance with the Torah's descriptions. A good source might be "The Bible in the British Museum" - published by the museum - which simply lays out various artifacts/tablets/etc. in the museum's collections that are illustrative of items and conditions to which the Torah refers . So again - Shmarya - it doesn't matter if the Torah was written by E, J, or whomever - whoever wrote it was writing contemperaneously with events he, she, or Hashem knew about. Your use of invective when challenged as to your overly simplistic and, frankly, vulgar beliefs ( and here, my dear Shmarya, the word 'vulgar' is used as it has often been in the classic English sense to denote a person or a viewpoint that is simplistic, strident in it's gross naïveté, to a point that is painful to have to confront) is demonstrative of a continued inability to think - to contemplate, to reflect, and then to react. Stick to what you're good at - gathering the news of the day that is in fact a reflection of a wrong turn that has been taken - stop calling people names...

[Shmarya]

I use the word when it fits.

You have to be one of those, ignorant or liar to write what you have.

Often what the Torah says matches conditions several hundred years after the depicted events, but cannot match the era of the events depicted.

If you didn't have one or more of the problems I noted, you'd know that – 99% of scholars certainly do.

[Jorge Torres Puello]

Its like the story of the first murder, It only took one murder to condem the other ones. Even if it was on children who was pass or sacrified, Hashem is just telling his people that this is wrong. As everithing.

[Jorge Torres Puello]

Sorry

One Children.

[Loveandlivethetorah.blogspot.com]

OMG!
The Torah is unreliable,the Torah was written by man,the Torah is Lying etc etc etc... AAARGH!

When will People finally understand that not everything written in the Torah is a Historical fact.
Tanakh was never meant to be a accurate history collection.
It is a mix of History,Allegory,Law,Ethics,and mysticism.
Many times Storys in the Tanakh which it might seem to the ignoramus(and many times the Learned too) are being said in a historical context are in fact pure fiction and are only intended for a different purpose,be it Law,Ethics etc

Six (human) days of creation(The Sun and Moon were not created till the 4th day,so what kind of days are we talking about?
definitely not human days P.S. google/wiki Isaac of Acco),What Sarah actually said about Avraham,and many many more,these are just a few of the examples of things written in Tanakh which are not to be taken as historical fact.
Just because some people decide to take everything literally does not mean that is the proper way to study the Torah.
Many Rabbis have over the centuries written things along the lines of what i am currently writing,i did not come to this conclusion on my own.
In fact all evidence points to the fact that that is exactly how the sages of The Talmud saw things too.
If you decide to Study the Torah with a flawed methodology,and later use your conclusion gained through this flawed methodology to support your claims of the Falseness of the Torah,
You are an Idiot.
If your point is just to show that many Torah scholars erred on many various topics,that's old news,(although there is a concept of "eilu w'eilu",but it does not always apply,and it is hard to know when it does,and according to the Maharal doesn't apply to anyone after Bet Shamai and Bet Hilel)
There was(and still is,D'uh) constant disagreement between them over Halakha,Hashkafa,etc The same goes for their views on the Historical Accuracy of different statements in Tanakh.
If you look at the way the Sages of the Talmud Darshend Midrashim,you will know exactly what i am talking about.
Stop Bashing the Holy Torah!

[Loveandlivethetorah.blogspot.com]

BTW
The headline is misleading(not the first time either,but hey,Shock value sells,$$$)
And there is nothing in This article that can even slightly dispute the claim that what the Torah said on the subject of child sacrifice in Canaan was historically inaccurate.

I HAVE read some books/articles etc which proved that some things in The Torah which people sought were Historical Facts,
Were not.
But this just ain't one of them.

[Joel Miller]

I think you may be stretching it to say that the report debunks the biblical story. It in fact seems to support it somewhat. The only contentious issue seems to be concerning regularity. It also uses evidence from Carthage and practices in the Cananite world may not have been universal. Other civilizations like those in the New World practiced selective child sacrifice it doesn't seem like a big leap to consider that the practice wasn't more universal at one time. The biblical accounts of Moloch and the story of the akeida seem to indicate that Judaism was interested in differentiating itself from these practices, certainly a step forward in human civilization.

[JessicaR]

Possible explanation: before the agricultural revolution and the development of reliable birth control, too many babies meant starvation for all. People may have practiced infanticide out of cruel necessity and tried to justify it and comfort themselves using religion. However, the underlying motive may have been fear of hunger.