Citation with stable link: Philip A. Harland, 'Syrians / Phoenicians: Asklepiades and Neanthes on the introduction of eating animal meat (fourth century BCE),' Ethnic Relations and Migration in the Ancient World, last modified July 29, 2026, https://philipharland.com/Blog/?p=23014.

Ancient authors: Asklepiades of Cyprus (fourth century BCE) and Neanthes of Kyzikos (fourth century BCE), as cited by Porphyry of Tyre (third century CE), De abstinentia / On Abstinence from Killing Animals 4.15.1-4 (link; link to Greek) = FGHist 752 F1 (link to FGrHist).

Comments: In this passage, the third century CE Neoplatonic author Porphyry cites a story about Syrians / Phoenicians regarding the supposed introduction of animal sacrifice and the eating of meat from two earlier authors. It is likely that Porphyry is drawing on Asklepiades of Cyprus’ fourth century work via Neanthes’ subsequent discussion of the same (see Schorn 2009).

Asklepiades and Neanthes, like Theophrastos (link), are concerned with explaining how the practice of eating meat came to be. More specifically, these authors come at this from the perspective that sacrificing animals at all, let alone going on to consume their flesh, is against a “natural law” that applied to all of humanity from the beginning. This “natural law” concept is shared by some other Greek elites (even though precise meanings differ) to the effect that, beyond the specific customs or laws established by each individual people, which may vary considerably, there were in fact natural laws that applied to all peoples. (Greek notions of  nature / physis and custom or law / nomos were more traditionally considered opposing ideas, as in Antiphon’s fifth century BCE statement [F44(a) = POxy 1364, fragment 1], so this concept is deliberately paradoxical). If a particular ethnic group was found engaging in such violations, then one could imagine a criminal people, an entire population regularly engaging in a particular crime. Asklepiades does not go that far at this point, but this does suggest the Greek rationale behind some cases of Greek elites criminalizing foreign populations that you will find in other posts in the “Criminalization” category on this site.

Here, though, Asklepiades (like Theophrastos) is more concerned to explain a theory of progressive decline with respect to the treatment of animals (perhaps imagined to apply to humanity at large and not just the Syrians) with the following stages: (1) From the outset, Syrians (Phoenicians / Tyrians are most in mind) rightly refrained from eating animal meat and, therefore, from slaughtering animals as sacrifices. (2) At some point afterwards, there was a belief by the Syrians that in a special situation one life was needed in exchange for another, and so they sacrificed an animal rather than a human. (3) By the time of Pygmalion king of Tyre, there was a major violation of local custom by one priest, who accidentally tasted but then consumed the meat. (Perhaps Asklepiades imagines this happening in the ninth or eight century BCE, if Josephos’ citation of Menander of Ephesos in Against Apion 1.116–127 [link] reflects common thinking). Ultimately, this led to a domino-effect of priests eating roasted meat and to the lifting of the local prohibition (which had in fact matched the “natural law”) against consuming animal meat.

Overall, though, Syrians are not presented in a derogatory manner, it seems. The Tyrian king himself is quite insistent on applying the law about not eating meat. Instead, the Syrians appear as a well-respected ancient people who at some point went off track due to some accidents, as other peoples who engaged in animal sacrifice and the eating of the meat (e.g. most other Greeks beyond Theophrastos and Asklepiades) would do as well.

Works consulted: S. Schorn, “On Eating Meat and Human Sacrifice,” in P. van Nuffelen, ed., Faces of Hellenism (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), pages 11-47.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

[Syrians / Phoenicians and the first animal sacrifice]

(4.15 = FGHist 752 F1) Furthermore, they [likely Asklepiades and Neanthes] report that the Syrians formerly refrained from eating animals and, for this reason, did not offer animals to the gods. But afterwards they offered them for the purpose of protecting against certain evil things (kakoi). Yet they did not at all allow eating flesh (sarkophagia). However, as Neanthes the Kyzikene and Asklepiades the Cyprian say, as time went on, around the time of Pygmalion, who was Phoenician by descent but was king of the Cyprians, the eating of flesh was introduced as a result of a crime (paranomia) in the following way:

In his work concerning Cyprus and Phoenicia, Asklepiades says:

“At first, they did not offer any ensouled [i.e. living] thing to the gods. But neither was there any law (nomos; or: custom) pertaining to this kind of thing, because it was prohibited by natural law (nomos physikos). However, as they relate the story, on a certain occasion they for the first time offered a sacrificial victim when one soul (or: life) was required in exchange for another soul. After this took place, the entire sacrificial victim was burned in the fire. Next, when the victim was burned, a piece of the flesh fell on the earth. When the priest picked up this piece, he burned his fingers and automatically put his fingers in his mouth to alleviate the pain which was caused by the burn. Consequently, having tasted of the roasted flesh in this way, he also wanted to eat a lot of it, and could not refrain from giving some of it to his wife.

However, when Pygmalion came to know about this incident, he ordered both the priest and his wife to be thrown headfirst from a steep cliff. Pygmalion gave the priesthood to another person. Not long afterwards, that priest performed the same offering, eating the flesh of the sacrificial victim, and he encountered the same disasters as his predecessor. As this situation continued further, however, and people performing the same kind of sacrifice gave into desire and did not abstain from but rather ate the flesh, this behaviour was no longer punished.

καὶ μὴν καὶ τοὺς Σύρους ἱστοροῦσι τὸ παλαιὸν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ζῴων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲ τοῖς θεοῖς θύειν, ὕστερον δὲ θῦσαι μὲν εἰς ἀποτροπήν τινων κακῶν, αὐτοὺς δὲ μηδὲ ὅλως προσίεσθαι τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν. προἴόντος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου, ὡς φησὶ Νεάνθης ὁ Κυζικηνὸς καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ Κύπριος, κατὰ Πυγμαλίωνα τὸν γένει μὲν Φοίνικα, βασιλεύσαντα δὲ Κυπρίων τὴν σαρκο- φαγίαν παραδεχθῆναι ἐκ τοιαύτης παρανομίας. λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀσκληπιάδης ἐν τῷ περὶ Κύπρου καὶ Φοινίκης ταῦτα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον οὐκ ἐθύετο τοῖς θεοῖς οὐδὲν ἔμψυχον, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ νόμος ἦν περὶ τούτου διὰ τὸ νόμῳ φυσικῷ κεκωλῦσθαι· ὑπὸ δέ τινας καιροὺς πρῶτον ἱερεῖον θῦσαι μυθεύονται, ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς αἰτουμένους. εἶτα τούτου γενομένου ὁλοκαυτίζειν τὸ τυθέν. ὕστερον δέ ποτε φλεγομένου τοῦ ἱε- ρείου πεσεῖν σάρκα εἰς γῆν, ἥν ἀνελόντα τὸν ἱερέα καὶ κατακαιόμενον ἀβουλήτως προσαγαγεῖν τῷ στό- ματι τοὺς δακτύλους, ἀκούμενον τὴν κατάκαυσιν. γευσάμενον δὲ τῆς κνίσσης ἐπιθυμῆσαι καὶ μὴ ἀποσχέσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ γυναικὶ μεταδοῦναι. γνόντα δὲ τοῦτο τὸν Πυγμαλίωνα αὐτόν τε καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα κατὰ κρημνῶν ἀφεῖναι, ἑτέρῳ δὲ τὴν ἱερωσύνην πα- ραδοῦναι, ὅς οὐ πολλοῦ χρόνου διαλιπόντος τὴν μὲν αὐτὴν θυσίαν ἔτυχε ποιούμενος, ὅτι δὲ τῶν αὐτῶν κρεῶν ἔφαγε, ταῖς αὐταῖς ἐκείνῳ συμφοραῖς περιέ- πιπτεν. ἐπὶ πλέον δὲ τοῦ πράγματος προβαίνοντος καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῇ θυσίᾳ χρωμένων καὶ διὰ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ἀπεχομένων, ἀλλὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ἁπτο- μένων, οὕτω δὴ ἀποστῆναι τοῦ κολάζειν.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Source of translation: T. Taylor, Select Works of Porphyry (London: T. Rodd, 1823), public domain, thoroughly adapted by Harland.