BackContentsNext

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

449

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

450

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

451

"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-

452

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.

BackContentsNext


CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely