3. Pronunciation of the Word
sources, this pronunciation or that
rendered "Moloch" has not been
found. Moreover, the versions are
discrepant in their renderings, the
Septuagint in particular showing a
confusion and an uncertainty between a form cor
responding to Moloch and one corresponding to Mil
aom. Accordingly it has
by critical scholars been
accepted that the pointing of the Masoretic text
has arisen from an understood Keri (see
Keri and Kethibh)
by which. in place of the textual mdk
(however it was pronounced), there was read the
word
bosheth, " shame,"
to recall the idolatry of
the
cult; and then the vowels of the Keri were used by
the Masoretes to point the consonants of the text.
This is supported by several considerations: (1) by
the known usage of the Hebrews in such cues.
(2) By the fact that Tophet is similarly pointed,
though both Septuagint
(Thapheth, Tapetk, Thaph
pheth)
and Syriac
(Tappath)
suggest a different
vocalization. In other words, both to the name
of the assumed deity and to the chief place of his
cult the vowels of the word
bosheth
were applied.
(3) By the conjunction of the article with the word
in all the undoubted cases of its occurrence, while
it is against the genius of the Hebrew to employ
the article with proper names. If this reasoning be
correct, the above facts reduce to the statement
that the practise in question was one in honor of a
deity one of whose titles was
hammeZek, "the
king,"
whoever this deity was. Several considerations
point to the application of this title to a number of
West-Semitic deities, one of which is the case of
Milcom (q.v.), whose name appears to be formed
from the word, while a salient case, to be discussed
later, is that of Melkarth (" king of the city ") of
Tyre; and the method was not
dissimilar from that
by which Baal was applied to these and other gods.
Much stress has been laid upon the fact that the
word, the consonants of which form the assumed
god-name Moloch and the word for "king," is a
frequent element in names, some
of them divine,
among the West Semites. Thus it appears in the
Palmyrene
Mlk-'el, " Mtk is
god," or
4. Com- "a king is god" (M. Lidzbarski, Norct
pounds
semitische Epigraphik,
Berlin; 1898);
of Mlk. among
the West Syrians occurred the
names Adrammelech, "Adar is king"
and Anammelech, "Anu is king"
(
II Kings xvii. 31);
in early Canaanitic history and among the
Philistines were such names as Abimelech (Gen. xm,
xxi., xxvi.), as also
among the Hebrews
(
Judges viii. 31,
ix.;
I Chron. xviii. 16);
kings of Byblos
are known with the names
Mlkshp'
and
Adarmlk,
while other names from the same locality are
Urumlk
and the Grecized form
Melkdrthm
(which gives a
clue to the pronunciation and is against the pro
nunciation Moloch or Molech). The Tyrian Mel
karth
(melek karath,
"° king of the city," Gk.
Met
kwthm) is
of great importance here, not only because
it was probably from his worship that the cult was
imported into Israel (see below) but because of the
light
which the formation of his name throws on
the use of
mlk
as a divine name or as an element
in such names.
Mlk
does not occur among Pheni
cians as in itself a divine or human name, only as
an element in compound names; an instance of
the occurrence alone as a proper name is found in
the Hebrew in
I Chron. viii. 35.
In this usage
mlk
is to be compared with Baal, which was not orig
inally a proper name (see Baal, § 2) but came to
be applied to the local divinity in
many places as
his name. It is inherently probable that the same
process was carried out with
metek,
"king," so that
it, too, in conjunction with a further element, be
came practically a proper name. The forms
Baal
mik,
" Baal is king," Melchizedek, " a king is (the
god) Zede$ "(7) or "Melek is righteous" (cf. Zedo
kiah, " Yah[weh] is righteous "),
,
Zdkmlk, "(the
god) 7ede$ is king,"
Mlkythn, "Mlk
has given,"
or "the king has given,"
Gdmdk, " Gad
is king "(7),
Malik-mmmu,
the name of an Edomitic king given
on the Taylor prism of Sennacherib,
Mlkb`b,
a deity
of Palmyra,
'bdmlk, " servant of
Mlk " (quite
de
cisive of
mik
as a divine name), and
'hthmlk, " sister of
mlk,"
from a (Phenician7) seal of
the seventh
century, are excellent examples from West Semitic
sources and finely illustrate the use as a divine
name or title of the word under consideration. It
is pertinent that Malik is the Islamic name for the
watchman of the lower regions. An array of names
partly inclusive of the foregoing has been supposed
to show that a deity Moloch or Molech was widely
worshiped among the West Semites. But the argu
VII.-29
ment fails for three reasons: First, the pronunciation of that element in the names cited is seldom
known. In cases where these names are cited as
compounded with Moloch, the pronunciation is assumed.
Two excellent examples of this are given
in Vigouroux,
Dictionnaire,
fasc. xxvii., col. 1226,
where "Moloch-Baal" is twice given as the reading, though the text is unpointed and only
mlkb'l
appears in the inscription. Second, where the pronunciation is given at all, it does not appear in the
form
molok
or
molek,
but in a form which suggests
the local pronunciation of the word for "king," as
in Melkarth; in the absence of definite knowledge
of such a deity, the probabilities are against the
vocalization assumed. Third, compounds apparently of the form cited above appear in the early
periods of Hebrew history, though no trace appears
of such a cult as that under discussion. Thus there
are Melchishua, " king of help " or " Melek is help "
(I Sam. xiv. 49);
Abimelech (cited above). They
exist also in the later periods, when there are met
Nathan-melech, "a king has given"
(II Kings xxiii. 11);
Malchiram, "my king is exalted" or
"Melek is exalted"
(I Chron. iii. 18);
The Ebedmelech of
Jer. xxxviii. 7, xxxix. 16
is a Cushite
(" Ethiopian "), whatever that may mean (see
Cusa), and so can not be counted to Israel; but
his name extends perhaps the area in which this
form was used; and in this particular it is to
be
put with Regemmelech (tech. vii. 2). But Malchiah or Malchijah
(I Chron. vi. 40, ix. 12;
Ezra x. 25
and elsewhere) is Jewish. These are possibly to
be brought into connection with the application of
the honorific title of king applied to Yahweh (see
below, § 8). The sum of the foregoing discussion
is therefore adverse to a vocalization of the word
in the form Moloch or Molech, and implicitly against
the existence of a deity known by that name.
The cult in Israel, it is clear, was the sacrifice of
children, often if not invariably the first-born, by
fire.
Ezek. xvi. 20-21, xxiii. 29
(cf.
Isa. lvii. 5)
seem to imply that the victims were killed before
being placed in the fire; and the verb
saraph
in
passages like
Jer. vii. 31, xix. 5;
cf.
5. The Cult.
Deut. xii. 31
would indicate merely
the characteristic method of completing the offering. Closer description of the
method of making the offering as practised among
the Hebrews is not obtainable, and
the Christian
and rabbinic accounts lack historical basis. At
Carthage, a Phenician colony, according to Diodo
rus Siculus (B2bliotheke histarike,
xx.14) the method
was to place the victim on the hands of a colossal
image, whence it rolled into a furnace
of fire beneath.
The Hebrew accounts furnish no basis for the supposition of such a method in Israel, and so notable
an image could hardlykave escaped description by
the prophets. If the derivation of the practise was
from Melkarth's worship (see below,
1
7), it is to
be noted that this deity was probably a sun god
and that therefore his worship by fire was natural
and appropriate. His symbols appear to have been
two pillars, and he is reported to
have been represented by the bull. Dr. William Hayes Ward knows
of a representation of a bull with pyramidal or
pointed back, from the breast of which two arms
stretch out; and there are representations of bull-
headed deities in the Semitic region. But these can
not be identified securely with Melkarth or with a
"melek-deity." Diodorus Siculus describes the
statue of the Carthaginian Kronos as human in
form with the arms outstretched-a feature used in
the rabbinic descriptions already alluded to. Yet
Melkarth is not to be conceived wholly as a malign
divinity, since compounds such as " Melkarth is
gracious," " Melkarth saves," " Melkarth hears (answers) " are known. Human sacrifice seems rather
abnormal among the Semites. , There are traces or
direct testimony for it among Aramaeans (Palmyrenes) and Phenicians, and it appears as a phenomenon of a decadent stage in religious development.
Such a feature is not unusual in the development of
a religion when distrust of ordinary means of obtaining-divine favor has entered. It must be noted,
however, that human sacrifice does not imply a
special divinity to whom it is offered; emergency
may be conceived to warrant it as a present to any
god. In such a case it is the result of a common
anthropopathism-what is of highest value to mortals is held in the same estimate by the gods. Attempts have been made by Jewish interpreters and
others to minimize the worship by reducing the
practise to the simple custom of passing children
through the fire for purposes of purification and
not as sacrificial victims. This custom is one widely
prevalent among primitive peoples, fire and water
being recognized as the two purgative elements.
Such a practise is described by Theodoret (on
II Kings, quest. xivii.), and was forbidden by the
Trullan Synod of 692 (canon 65; Hefele,,
Conciliengeschichte, iii.
338, Eng. transl.,
v.
232). But the
passages cited above are decisive of the fact of sacrifice. [Indeed the descriptive phrase does not
mean " to pass through " but " to pass over," " to
transfer," i.e., " to dedicate or offer," as is shown
by its use in
Ex. xiii. 12,
where Yahweh is the object of worship and there is no allusion to fire.
a. r. u.J. The attempt to minimize the wickedness is no more successful here than in the case of
Jephthah's daughter.
A factor in the question of the date of the introduction of this practise among the Hebrews has
been the assumption of the practical identity of
Moloch and Milcom (q.v.). The basis for this is the
linguistic fact that the same word "king" is at the
root of both forms. Were the identity
6. 'Date of the two established, supposing alof Intro- ways that there were
a
deity Moloch,
duction the date of the introduction of the cult
into Israel. into Israel would be fixed by I Kings
xi. in the time of Solomon. But several sets of data are against this. (1) The sacrifice
of children is not in the Old Testament associated
with Milcom. (2) The plate of worship of the two
cults was different. (3) In the category of the sins
of Solomon in the chapter cited the sacrifice of children does not appear; he burned incense and saorificed to the gods of the peoples, but there is silence
as to human sacrifice. (4) The condemnation of
this sin by the prophets is not in evidence till a
late period, and it is inconceivable that such a
practise could. have. escaped the denunciation of
early prophets had it existed. The cases of human
sacrifice in Israel prior to Solomon do not suggest
a custom of offering children. The case of Abraham and Isaac is altogether individual, the instance
being quite exceptional; that of Jephthah was emergential in nature and appears also as unusual. It
is true that something sacrificial is imported into
the killing of Agag, whom Samuel hewed to pieces
"before the Lord"
(I Sam. xv. 33),
but there is
no connection between this example and the offering of children by fire.
II Sam. xii. 31
can not be
adduced, since the corrected Hebrew text affords
the reading "made them labor at the brick kiln"
for "made them pass through the brick kiln" (S.
R. Driver,
Notes on. the Hebrew Text of Samuel, pp.
226-229, Oxford, 1890). The age of Solomon as
the period of the introduction of the cult may be
dismissgd. There is nothing at all to connect Ahab
or Jezebel with the cult except inference based on
Jezebel's derivation from Tyre where it was known
to exist. The earliest definite statement of this
practise is in connection with Ahaz
(II Kings xvi. 3;
cf.
II Chron. xxviii. 3).
The historicity of the
passage is questioned on the ground of the silence
of the prophets of his own and the immediately
following period. That the objection is not insuperable in this instance is shown by those who defend the historicity by supposing that the sacrifice
(the case is singular, " his son ") was emergential
and in some measure like that of Mesha
(II Kings iii. 26).
Further, that Ahaz was inclined to syncretism, or at least to following fashions of worship,
is shown by the passage
II Kings xvi. 10-13.
Moreover,
Isa. xxx. 33
plays suggestively upon the words
Tophet and
melek
(Driver regards the passage as
Isaianic, but Guthe, Cheyne, and others refer verses
27-33 to the exilic period).
Isa. viii. 21
(which
should read: "curse the house of their king and
their God," see
Isaiah, II., 2, § 2) can not be
brought into this connection since "their king"
refers to Yahweh, of. Isa. vi: 5-unless the cult was
one imposed upon his worship and "their king"
refers to him (cf.
Isa. vi. 5
and see below, § 8).
Manasseh is the next king connected with the sacrifice of children
(II Kings xxi. 6;
of.
II Chron. xxxiii. 6,
where Tophet is mentioned). To the extension of the practise under Manasseh may be due
the passages in Deuteronomy (xii. 31, xviii. 10),
the one denunciatory and the other prohibitory.
They seem to show that just before the time of Jeremiah the practise had become one of which it was
necessary that the legislators take note-the cult
had become prominent with a definite locus. It is
not surprising therefore that Josiah "defiled Topheth"
(II Kings xxiii. 10)
so as to make it a place
unfit for sacrificial purposes. The passages cited
from Jeremiah (xix. 5, xxxii. 35) and Ezekiel show
a renewed prevalence during the last days of the
Judaic kingdom.
Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2
belong to an
early stratum of the priest code, while
Isa. lvii. 5, 9
look back on preexilic or early exilic practise.
The indications therefore are that it was introduced
and in force under Manasseh.
It was long the custom, in this as in other matters, on account of inexact knowledge of Assyrian
and, Babylonian practises, to refer the origin of the
"Moloch" cult to the Assyrian-Babylonian religion. But as already noted, the traces of human
sacrifice in that region are few and
7. Source faint. II Kings used to be advanced
of the Cult. in favor
of this theory; as Sepharvaim
was identified with Sippara (see
Babylonia, IV., § 11).
But it is now known that Sepharvaim was a town in western Syria, and this 1ocation falls in with the
testimony yet to be adduced. In this connection it is noteworthy that
Deut. xii. 29-31
regards the practise as Canaanitic. The practise of offering children has been shown not to be
early Hebraic, and this is corroborated by the excavations at
Gezer (q.v.), where the
foundation sacrifiev, common and quite normal in the prehebraic period, as is usual among civilizations of a
low grade, disappears in the Hebraic period. The
case of Hiel the Bethelite
(
I Kings xvi. 34)
has often been explained as a case of "foundation" and
"completion" sacrifice. While this interpretation
may be correct, since the period as a whole is one
of adoption of Canaanitic cults by the Hebrews,
the data are too incomplete to permit of
dogmatizing, and another explanation, that of accidental
fatality coincident with beginning and end of the
building operations, is at least possible.
II Kings iii. 27,
R. V. margin," there came great wrath upon
Israel," is explained by many facts revealed by
comparative religion as the common fallacy of
post hoc propter
hoc, associating an Israelitic disaster
with the sacrifice, and shows the practise in the Ca^
naanitic region to have been sometimes one of emergency. But this feature of the case argues against
the Moabitic origin for the cult as practised by the
Hebrews. The most likely and almost certain
fountain of the Hebrew practise is the Phenician cult.
Abundant testimony is extant from Greek and Roman authors, agreeing therefore with the passages
in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, that in Phenicia
and in Phenician colonies, notably at Carthage, the
sacrifice of children was a prominent rite in the
public religious services. The Greeks, following the
common custom of identifying the gods of other
peoples with their own, called the deity to whom
these offerings were made Kronos, to whom, it is
relevant to note, Greek writers applied the term
baaileus, "king." Pliny
.(Nat. hist., XXXVI., v.
12) states that to Melkarth, god of Tyre, identified
by the Greeks with Herakles, child sacrifices were
offered; a fragment of Philo of Byblos asserts that
sacrifices of this type were offered to "El," which,
however, is not necessarily a proper name. Other
Greek writers call the god of this cult Zeus. For
the references to Greek and Roman writers of. F. C.
C. H. Münter
Religion der Korthager
(Copenhagen, 1816). Melkarth and cognate deities appear to
have been sun-gods, to whom sacrifice by fire was
normal and natural. The connection between Phenicians and Hebrews was sufficiently close to make
this derivation easy.
If, then, as the facts seem to justify, it may be
concluded that the rite was one imposed upon the
worship of Yahweh and was in his
honor and imitation of a foreign cult, can a motive be found?
This can be done, and the indirect testimony is
rather strong. The codes (e.g.,
Ex. xiii. 11-15)
de-
manded the consecration of the first-born to Yahweh, with, however, the option of redemption (in the
ethnic history of sacrifice a late device;
H. Basis in see
Comparative Religion, VI., 1, d,
§ 4). Under the principle already
Rational Conscience. enunciated, that in times of trouble
nations not infrequently resort to
human sacrifice, though it is not a usual bAbit, it
is not impossible that the Hebrews followed the
stress
of feeling in the later days of their kingdom
under accumulated disaster and decay of power.
There seem to be hints that their logic led them
to the conclusion that their law demanded this
form of worship, that they had long been remiss in
not paying what was due, and that their cumulative
distress was due to this.
Jer. xix. 5,
"to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal,
which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came
it into my mind," reads like a disavowal of such an
interpretation as is here suggested.
It is an ex plicit disclaimer by Yahweh that he had ordered
such a cult, together with the statement that it is
really an offering to Baal. The two motives-
der
nier resort in time of trouble, and, in view of this,
a not impossible construction of a well-known legal
provision-are sufficient to explain such an impor
tation into the Yahweh worship. This appears the
easier since to Yahweh the title and attributes of
king were often attributed. He is called king in
Num. xxiii. 21;
Deut. xxxiii. 5;
Isa. vi. 5, xxxiii. 17, 22, xli. 25, xliv. 6;
Jer. viii. 19;
Micah ii. 13;
and often in the Psalms; the use of the verb "reign"
is also frequent in connection with his relation to
Israel (e.g.,
Ex. xv. 18;
Isa. Iii. 7;
Micah iv. 7);
while the mention of him on his throne appears in
such passages as
I Kings xxii. 19;
Isa. vi. 1.
If there were a
melek cult of human sacrifice among
the surrounding nations, the fact that this epithet
was applied to Yahweh would make the cult more
feasible.
The one difficulty is that the rite does
not appear to have been practised in the Temple
or inside Jerusalem.
Ezek. xxiii. 38
sqq. appears to make a distinction between the worship of Yah
weh and this rite. The passage states that the rite
was performed on the sabbath, and that on the
same day the worshipers went into
Yahweh's sanc. tuary and thus defiled it. The answer of course is
that this is the view of one who condemns the cult,
and would not be held by those who employed it,
who would not jeopardize success by alienating the
deity. It is well known that a deity may have of
fered to him sacrifices differing essentially in char
acter. Thus to Zeus it is known that the pig was
offered, though this animal was appropriate as an
offering only to chthonic deities (of. Jane Ellen Har
rison,
Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, pp.
13 sqq., Cambridge, 1908). The cult in Tophet may
have been in honor of Yahweh, and the following
of a double cultus may have been regarded as
doubly efficacious.
Geo. W. Gilmore.
Bibliography:
The earlier literature, from the modern
point of view for the most part antiquated, is given in
Hauck-Herzog, RE, 3uii. 28270; much
of it is collected
in Ugolini, Thesaurus anliquitatum
aacrarum, vol muii., Venice, 1780. Consult: J. Bolden,
De die Syria, London, 1817; F. C. Movers, Dio Religim der Phtinieier, pp.
322498, Bonn, 1841; C. Schwenek,
Die Mythologic der Semi-
ten, Frankfort, 1849; A. Kuenen, in
ThT, ii (1868), 551
598; idem, De Godedienet roan Israel, chap. iv., Eng. transl.,
Religion of Israel, i. 249-252, London, 1873; H. Oort, in
Waarheid in
Liefde, 1868. pp. 1-31, 81-108, 161-173;
W. von Baudissin, Jahve
et Moloch, Leipsic, 1874; E.
Nestle,
Die israelitiechen Eigennamen, pp. 174-182, ITear
lem, 1876; P. Scholtz,
Gctzendienst and Zauberweeen bei
den alten Hebräern, pp 182-217, Regensburg, 1877; C. P.
Tiele,
Hist. compar6e lee anciennes religions de 11gypte
et des peuples s6mitiques, 281 sqq., 311 sqq., 435 sqq.,
Paris, 1882; idem,
Geschichte der Religion in Altertum,
i. 240-244, 343-344, 349-352, Gotha, 1896; Hoffman,
ZATW, iii (1883), 124; idem,
in GGA, aarcvi (1890), 25;
B. D. Eerdmans,
Melekdienst en verserinp van hemellicha
men in larval's assyrische periods, Leyden, 1891; G. B.
Gray,
Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, pp. 115-120, 138,
148, London, 1896; A. Kamphausen,
Dae Verhdltnis des
, ppli161-165RanEB, iii. 3183 G. F. Moore, in JBL3191; M. J. Lagrange, Etudes our les
religions sbmitiques.
pp. 99, 109, Paris, 1903; Schrader,
KAT, pp 469-472;
Smith, Hot. of Sam.,
pp.
372
sqq.;
DB, iii. 415-417;
JE,
653-664;
Vigourous, Dictionnaire, fasc. uvii., ools. 1224-1230.
