Moloch
Moloch (also rendered as Molech or Molekh, representing the Hebrew מלך mlk) is a Canaanite god associated in the Old Testament with human sacrifice. Alternately, some scholars have suggested that the term refers to a particular kind of sacrifice carried out by the Pheonicians and their neighbours rather than a specific god, though this theory has been widely have rejected. Although Moloch is referred to sparingly in the Old Testament texts, the significance of the god and/or the sacrificial ritual cannot be underestimated, as the Isrealite writers vehemently reject the related practices, regarding them as murderous and idolotrous. Moloch has also been an object of fascination for many creative minds, and has been used to bolster metaphorical and thematic elements within numerous modern works of art, film, and literature.
Molech and other gods
It has been put forward by the variety of scholars that Moloch is not an original god himself, but actually an alternative moniker given to another god or gods from cultures who lived in proximity to the Israelites. For instance, a number of scholars hold that Moloch is actually the Ammonite god Milcom, due to the phonological similarity of the names. While the names are indeed similar, the Old Testament text clearly differentiates between these dieties on several occassions, most notably when referring to the national god of the Ammonites (Milcom) and the god of human sacrifice (Moloch). But in other passages the god of the Ammonites is named Milcom, not Moloch (see 1 Kings 11.33; Zephaniah 1.5). The Septuagint reads Milcom in 1 Kings 11.7, referring to Solomon's religious failings, instead of Moloch which suggests a scribal error in the Hebrew. Many English translations accordingly follow the non-Hebrew versions at this point and render Milcom. Further, the Old Testament mostly refers to Molech as Canaanite, rather than Ammonite.
Other scholars have claimed that Moloch is merely another name for Ba'al, the Sacred Bull, who was widely worshipped in the ancient Near East and wherever Carthaginian culture extended. Jeremiah 32.35 refers to rituals dedicated to Baal in the Hinnom valley, with the offering of child sacrifices to Moloch. Allusions made to Moloch in the context of the Canaanite fertily cult, which was headed by Baal, also suggest a close relationship. Further, the bible commonly makes reference to burnt offerings being given to Baal himself. While these examples could be interpreted to suggest that Moloch and Baal refer to the same god, it more likely refers to the acknowledgement of their close relationship. Again, the fact a distinct name is used in the context of sacrifice suggests that Moloch can only be related to (perhaps in the faculty of a henotheistic underling) rather than equated with Baal.
The fact that the god is consistently called by this name Melek and not any other suggests that Molech is the name of a distinct deity. There was indeed a Canaanite god whose name was rendered Melek in the Old Testament, which is acknowledged in the Ugraritic texts, which are serpent charms, as well as in the Syrian and Mesopotamian religions, where he appears as Malik. Malik is equivalent to Nergal, the Mesopotamian god of the underworld in godlists from ancient Babylonia. This supports Molech's identity as a malevolent presence in the Old Testament, where Isaiah (57.9) parallels sacrifice to Moloch with journeying to the underground world of Sheol.
Forms and grammar
Baal-Moloch was conceived under the form of a calf or an ox or depicted as a man with the head of a bull.
The Hebrew letters מלך (mlk) usually stands for melek or simply the King, and were used to refer to the status of the sacrificial god within his cult cult. Thus, the name Moloch is not the name he was known by among his worshippers, but a Hebrew translation. The written form Moloch (in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament), or Molech (Hebrew), is no different than the word Melek or king, which is purposely misvocalized by interposing the vowels of bosheth or 'shameful thing'. This distortion allows the term to express the compunction felt by Israelites who witnessed their brethren worship this god of human sacrifices, and in doing so prevents them from giving noble status of "king" to what was for all intents and purposes, a false idol.
The term usually appears in the compound lmlk. The Hebrew preposition l- means 'to', but it can often mean 'for' or 'as a(n)'. Accordingly one can translate lmlk as "to Moloch", "for Moloch", "as a Moloch", "to the Moloch", "for the Moloch" or "as the Moloch", whatever a "Moloch" or "the Moloch" might be. We also once find hmlk 'the Moloch' standing by itself.
Old Testament
Molech is of particular importance in the Old Testament. Here it is indicated that Molech was taken from the Canaanites, as Leviticus 18.21 mentions the Molech cult amidst a gamut of violations which are distinctly Canaanite, such as homosexuality and bestiality. The brutal and idolatrous worship given to Molech is provided among these other trangressions to juxtapose correct worship in the Israelite tradition with that of the people of Canaan. This is reiterated in Isaih 57.9 when Molech is condemned along with the Canaanite fertility gods. According to the Old Testament, the Israelite desire to partake in acts of human sacrifice came from the Canaanites. Deuteronomy 18:9 warns "you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations." The pertinent Biblical texts follow in very literal translation. The word here translated literally as 'seed' very often means offspring. The forms containing mlk have been left untranslated. The reader may substitute either "to Moloch" or "as a molk".
Leviticus 18.21
And you shall not let any of your seed pass through Mo'lech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 20.2–5:
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 Mo'lech; 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 Mo'lech, 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 Mo'lech, 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 after Mo'lech from among the people.
Here the metaphor of prostitution is used in order to convey the sense of spiritual adultery which is being committed against Yahweh through the worship of Molech. The disdain for Moloch may have come due to his worship in addition to that of Yahweh, and alternately may have been based in the fact that he was equated with Yahweh. The prose sections of Jeremiah suggest that there were some worshippers of Molech who thought Yahweh had commanded the sacrifices to Molech based upon the sacrifices of the first-born which are mentioned in the Pentateuch (Exodus 22.28). This theory is questionable in reality, however, as Molech was seen as a god of the underworld and worshipped outside the temple.
2 Kings 23.10 (on King Josiah's reform):
And he defiled the Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire Mo'lech.
Jeremiah 32.35:
And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire Mo'lech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Moloch has also been referred to simply as a rebel angel.
Traditional accounts and theories
The 12th century rabbi Rashi, commenting on Jeremiah 7.31 stated:
Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.
A different rabbinical tradition says that the idol was hollow and was divided into seven compartments, in one of which they put flour, in the second turtle-doves, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, which were all burnt together by heating the statue inside.
Rashi stated that the cult of Molech involved a father conceding his son to pagan priests, who then passed a child between two flaming pyres. Rashi, as well as other rabbinic commentators, interpreted human sacrifice to Molech as being adulterous, as it solidified allegiance to a false god. Such an interpretation in terms of idolatry made the biblical laws seem more pertinent in the 12th century, as the practice of human sacrifice had faded into oblivion.
Later commentators have compared these accounts with similar ones from Greek and Latin sources speaking of the offering of children by fire as sacrifices in the Punic city of Carthage, which was a Phoenician colony. Cleitarchus, Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch all mention burning of children as an offering to Cronus or Saturn, that is to Ba‘al Hammon, the chief god of Carthage.
Paul G. Mosca in his thesis (described below) translates Cleitarchus' paraphrase of a scholia to Plato's Republic as:
There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the 'grin' is known as 'sardonic laughter,' since they die laughing.
Diodorus Siculus (20.14) wrote:
There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.
Diodorus also relates relatives were forbidden to weep and that when Agathocles defeated Carthage, the Carthaginian nobles believed they had displeased the gods by substituting low-born children for their own children. They attempted to make amends by sacrificing 200 children at once, children of the best families, and in their enthusiasm actually sacrificed 300 children.
Note: It must be said that the Romans spread falsehoods about the Phoenicians after they finally defeated them and totally destroyed Carthago. A kind of post-war propaganda, to make their arch enemies seem much less civilised and cruel savages. It is possible that some Carthaginians committed suicide or even that the Romans slaughtered them when the city fell.
Plutarch wrote in De Superstitiones 171:
... the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of wailing should not reach the ears of the people.
It seemed to many commentators that this Cronus or Saturn must also be Moloch. However, disturbingly, nineteenth century and early twentieth century archaeology found almost no evidence of a god called something like Moloch or Molech. Rabbinical traditions about other gods mentioned in the Tanach appeared to be unreliable, just Jewish legends which raised reasonable doubt about what was said about Moloch. The descriptions of Moloch might be simply taken from accounts of the sacrifice to Cronus and from the tale of the Minotaur. No bull-headed Phoenician god was known. This did not hold back some from identifying Moloch with Milcom, with the Tyrian god Melqart, with Ba‘al Hammon to whom children were purportedly sacrificed, and with any other god called 'Lord' (Ba‘al) or (Bel). These various suggested equations combined with the popular solar theory hypotheses of the day generated a single theoretical sun god Baal, a modern meta-mythical being who was otherwise whatever the theorist wished him to be.
Moloch in medieval texts
Like some other gods and demons found in the Bible, Moloch appears as part of medieval demonology, as a Prince of Hell. This Moloch finds particular pleasure in making mothers weep; for he specialises in stealing their children. According to some 16th century demonologists Moloch's power is stronger in October.
It is likely that the motif of stealing children was inspired by the traditional understanding that babies were sacrificed to Moloch. The ancients would heat this idol up with fire until it was glowing, then they would take their newborn babies, place them on the arms of the idol, and watch them burn to death.
The Molech Cult
Molech has most often been characterized by the phrase "to cause to pass through the fire," (h'byrb's in Hebrew) as is used in 2 Kings 23.10. Although this term does not specificy on its own whether the ritual related to Moloch is sacrificial or not, the Old Testament clearly interprets it to be so. For example, Isaiah 57.5 states that "you who burn with lust among the oaks, under every luxuriant tree; who slay your children in the valleys, under the clefts of rocks" and four verses later mentions Molech specifically: "You journeyed to Molech with oild and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol." (Isaih 57.9) This reference to the underworld suggests that the fate of children is to be sent to death at the hands of Molech. Molech is connected to the valley of Hinnom, where sacrifices to Molech (as well as related gods such as Baal) take place, commonly referred to as Tophet (as mentioned in 2 Kgs 23.10, Jer. 7.31-32, 19.6, 11-14). Rabinnic tradition connects this term to the root tpp, which refers to the sound of burning children. While there has been some question as to whether or not the Old Testament's depiction of the Molech sacrifices is polemical, evidence of human sacrifice in Canaanite territories such as Carthage and Pheonicia lend credence to the argument that "passing through the fire" refers to human sacrifices.
Modern accounts and theories
Eissfeldt's theory: a type of sacrifice
It was widely held that Moloch was a god until 1935 when Otto Eissfeldt, a German archaeologist, published a radical new theory based upon excavations he had made in Carthage. During these excavations he made several telling discoveries: a relief showing a priest holding a child, a sanctuary to the goddess Tanit comprising a cemetery with thousands of burned bodies of animal and of human infants, and finally inscriptions with the word mlk used in the context that he claimed meant neither 'king' nor the name of any god. He concluded that mlk in Hebrew was instead a term used to refer to a particular kind of sacrifice, one which at least in some cases involved human sacrifice, since mlk (molk) is a Punic term for sacrifice. It is very evident that the Punic culture practiced human sacrifice, as is attested in various classical sources as well as the archaelogical evidence. Thus, Eissfeldt identified the site as a tophet, using a Hebrew word of previously unknown meaning connected to the burning of human beings in some Biblical passages. Similar "tophets" have since been found at Carthage and other places in North Africa, and in Sardinia, Malta, Sicily . In late 1990 a possible tophet consisting of cinerary urns containing bones and ashes and votive objects was retrieved from ransacking on the mainland just outside of Tyre in the Phoenician homeland [1].
Eissfeldt further concluded that the Hebrew writings were not talking about a god Moloch at all, but about the molk or mulk sacrifice, that the abomination was not in worshipping a god Molech who demanded children be sacrificed to him, but in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk. Hebrews were strongly opposed to sacrificing first-born children as a molk to Yahweh himself. The practice may have been conducted by their neighbors in Canaan. The relevant Scriptural passages depict Yahweh condemning such practices in harsh terms. Hebrews who made such a sacrifice were executed by stoning. Any who knew about such a sacrifice, and did not act to prevent it, were ejected from the community along with their family. [2]
Discussion of Eissfeldt's theory
From the beginning there were some who doubted Eissfeldt's theory but opposition was only sporadic until 1970. Prominent archaeologist Sabatino Moscati (who had accepted Eissfeldt's idea, like most others) changed his opinion and spoke against it. Others followed. [citation needed]
The arguments were that classical accounts of the sacrifices of children at Carthage were not numerous and were only particularly described as occurring in times of peril, not necessarily a regular occurrence. Might not the burned bodies of infants be mostly those of stillborn children or of children who had died very young of natural causes? Might not the burning of their bodies be a religious practice applied in such cases? Need one assume the burning of live children? Could the accounts be anti-Punic propaganda? Why were accusations of human sacrifice in Carthage found only among a small number of authors and not mentioned at all by many other writers who dealt with Carthage in greater depth or were more openly hostile to Carthage? Some accounts of the sacrifices described the children as lads and lasses, hardly infants.
Texts referring to the molk sacrifice mentioned animals more than they mentioned humans. Of course, those may have been animals offered instead of humans to redeem a human life. And the Biblical decrying of the sacrificing of one's children as a molk sacrifice doesn't indicate one way or the other that all molk sacrifices must involve human child sacrifice or even that a molk usually involved human sacrifice. Thus, it has been put forth that mlk refers to the act of "offering" in general, rather than human sacrifice specifically. Mlk can also be combined with 'dm to mean "sacrifice of a man," while mlk 'mr refers to the "sacrifice of a sheep." Therefore the term mlk on its own is not specified.
Eissfeldt's use of the Biblical word tophet was criticized as arbitrary. Even those who believed in Eissfeldt's general theory mostly took tophet to mean something like 'hearth' in the Biblical context, not a cemetery of some kind.
John Day, in his book Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge, 1989; ISBN 0-521-36474-4), again put forth the argument that there was indeed a particular god named Molech, citing a god mlk from two Ugaritic serpent charms, and an obscure god Malik/Malku from some god lists who in two texts was equated with Nergal, the Mesopotamian god of the underworld. A god of the underworld is just the kind of god one might worship in the valley of Ben-Hinnom rather than on a hill top.
Day also points out the phrase whoring after which is commonly related to Molech (i.e. )was used elsewhere in the bible only in regards to seeking other gods, not about particular religious practices. And should one so casually turn aside from the Greek translation made by those who may have known far more about such things than we will ever know to say that lmlk must mean 'as a molk offering' and not 'to Moloch'? It is also highly unlikely that all other ancient versions of the biblical texts would all ignore sacrificial meaning of Molech if the word indeed developed out of this meaning. However, none of the ancient versions notes this connotation for the term. Thus, there is little support of the supposition that the Molech of the Old Testament should be equated with the Punic molk. As such, detractors to Eissfelt's theories have gained in numbers.
It has alternately been suggested that the Punic word molk referring to sacrifice may have been mistaken by the composers of the Old Testament to refer to a god. However, this theory has also been debunked on the basis of the fact that, if correct, an improbable number of biblical interpreters would have misunderstood the term (which is referred to in the sense of a god in numerous books of the bible). Such an misunderstanding is unlikely considering the fact that biblical writers wrote in the time such sacrifices were being practiced.
Flaubert's conception
Salammbô, a sensationalist semi-historical novel about Carthage by Gustave Flaubert published in 1888 was extraordinarily successful. Flaubert imaginatively and not without reasonable scholarship, created his own version of the Carthaginian religion, including known Carthaginian gods such as Ba‘al Hammon, Khamon, Melkarth and Tanith. But he also included the god Moloch, and made Moloch rather than Khamon to be the god to whom the Carthaginians offered children. Flaubert described this Moloch mostly according to the Rabbinic descriptions but with his own additions. From chapter 7:
Then further back, higher than the candelabrum, and much higher than the altar, rose the Moloch, all of iron, and with gaping apertures in his human breast. His outspread wings were stretched upon the wall, his tapering hands reached down to the ground; three black stones bordered by yellow circles represented three eyeballs on his brow, and his bull's head was raised with a terrible effort as if in order to bellow.
Chapter 13 describes luridly how, in desperate attempt to call down rain, the image of Moloch was brought to the center of Carthage, how the arms of the image were moved by the pulling of chains by the priests (apparently Flaubert's own invention), and then describes the sacrifices made to Moloch. First grain and animals of various kinds were placed in compartments within the statue (as in the Rabbinic account). Then the children were offered, at first a few, and then more and more.
The brazen arms were working more quickly. They paused no longer. Every time that a child was placed in them the priests of Moloch spread out their hands upon him to burden him with the crimes of the people, vociferating: "They are not men but oxen!" and the multitude round about repeated: "Oxen! oxen!" The devout exclaimed: "Lord! eat!" and the priests of Proserpine, complying through terror with the needs of Carthage, muttered the Eleusinian formula: "Pour out rain! bring forth!"
The victims, when scarcely at the edge of the opening, disappeared like a drop of water on a red-hot plate, and white smoke rose amid the great scarlet colour.
Nevertheless, the appetite of the god was not appeased. He ever wished for more. In order to furnish him with a larger supply, the victims were piled up on his hands with a big chain above them which kept them in their place. Some devout persons had at the beginning wished to count them, to see whether their number corresponded with the days of the solar year; but others were brought, and it was impossible to distinguish them in the giddy motion of the horrible arms. This lasted for a long, indefinite time until the evening. Then the partitions inside assumed a darker glow, and burning flesh could be seen. Some even believed that they could descry hair, limbs, and whole bodies.
Night fell; clouds accumulated above the Baal. The funeral-pile, which was flameless now, formed a pyramid of coals up to his knees; completely red like a giant covered with blood, he looked, with his head thrown back, as though he were staggering beneath the weight of his intoxication.
Director Giovanni Pastrone's very popular silent film Cabiria released in 1914 was largely based on Salammbo and included an enormous image of Moloch modeled on Flaubert's description. Elizabeth Dilling quoted Flaubert's descriptions as factual in her notorious anti-Jewish The Plot Against Christianity re-released under the title The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. Information from the novel and film still finds its way into serious writing about Moloch, Melqart, Carthage, Ba‘al Hammon and so forth.
Moloch in literature and popular culture
In Milton's Paradise Lost, Moloch is one of the greatest warriors of the rebel angels, vengeful and militant,
- "besmeared with blood
- Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears."
He is listed among the chief of Satan's angels in Book I, and is given a speech at the parliament of Hell in Book 2:43 - 105, where he argues for immediate warfare against God. He later becomes revered as a pagan god on Earth.
"Moloch" features prominently in the second part of Allen Ginsberg's poem Howl. In that work, Moloch is generally interpreted as representing American greed and bloodthirst. In Alexandr Sokurov's 1999 film Moloch about Adolf Hitler, Moloch is of course a metaphor for the German Führer. Moloch: is a novel by Henry Miller
Moloch also appears again and again in popular culture, from films to videogames. In modern Hebrew language the expression sacrifice something/someone to the Molech means to give up something valuable or harm someone for an utterly worthless cause.
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Grena, G.M. LMLK—A Mystery Belonging to the King vol. 1 Redondo Beach, CAL: 4000 Years of Writing History, 2004. ISBN 0-9748786-0-X
- Day, John Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-521-36474-4),
See also
External links
- Old articles on Moloch
- Encyclopædia Biblica: Minni – Mordecai (Contains a very long but now outdated article on Moloch from 1899.)
- Jewish Encyclopedia: Moloch and Chiun (Short examples of older discussion.)
- Catholic Encyclopedia: Moloch (A short but quite good article, in part denying that Moloch sacrifices were offered to Yahweh as argued in the Encyclopædia Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia.)
- On the Molk sacrifice
- Hannibal Barca: The God in Stone (A strong statement of the molk sacrifice theory.)
- Phoenicia: Child Sacrifice (Arguments for and against child sacrifice in Carthage and elsewhere.)
- A Preliminary Report on the Incirli Stele (Discussion of a stele with Phoenician text which may equate molk/mulk to first-born son).
- HelgaSeeden, "A tophet in Tyre?" 1991. from Bertyus 39 (American University of Beirut).
- Modern conspiracy theories
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
