Moloch,Molech, orMolek^[a] is a word which appears in theHebrew Bible several times, primarily in theBook of Leviticus. The GreekSeptuagint translates many of these instances as "their king", but maintains the word or nameMoloch in others, including one additional time in theBook of Amos where the Hebrew text does not attest the name. TheBible strongly condemns practices that are associated with Moloch, which are heavily implied to includechild sacrifice.^[2]

Traditionally, the nameMoloch has been understood as referring to aCanaanite god.^[3] However, since 1935, scholars have speculated that Moloch refers to the sacrificeitself, since the Hebrew wordmlk is identical in spelling to a term that means "sacrifice" in the closely relatedPunic language.^[4] This second position has grown increasingly popular, but it remains contested.^[5] Among proponents of this second position, controversy continues as to whether the sacrifices were offered toYahweh or another deity, and whether they were a native Israelite religious custom or aPhoenician import.^[6]

Since themedieval period, Moloch has often been portrayed as a bull-headed idol with outstretched hands over a fire; this depiction takes the brief mentions of Moloch in the Bible and combines them with various sources, including ancient accounts ofCarthaginian child sacrifice and the legend of theMinotaur.^[7]

Beginning in themodern era, "Moloch" has been figuratively used in reference to a power which demands a dire sacrifice.^[8] A god Moloch appears in various works of literature and film, such asJohn Milton'sParadise Lost (1667),Gustave Flaubert'sSalammbô (1862),Fritz Lang'sMetropolis (1927), andAllen Ginsberg's "Howl" (1955).

The etymology of Moloch is uncertain: a derivation from the rootmlk, which means "to rule" is "widely recognized".^[10] Since it was first proposed byAbraham Geiger in 1857, some scholars have argued that the word "Moloch" has been altered by using the vowels ofbōšet "shame".^[11] Other scholars have argued that the name is aqal participle from the same verb.^[12] R. M. Kerr criticizes both theories by noting that the name of no other god appears to have been formed from aqal participle, and that Geiger's proposal is "an out-of-date theory which has never received any factual support".^[13] Paul Mosca, Professor Emeritus at theUniversity of British Columbia, similarly argued that "the theory that a formmolek would immediately suggest to the reader or hearer the wordboset (rather thanqodes orohel) is the product of nineteenth century ingenuity, not of Massoretic [sic] or pre-Massoretic tendentiousness".^[14]

Scholars who do not believe that Moloch represents a deity instead compare the name to inscriptions in the closely relatedPunic language where the wordmlk (molk ormulk) refers to a type of sacrifice, a connection first proposed byOtto Eissfeldt (1935).^[15] Eissfeldt himself, followingJean-Baptiste Chabot, connected Punicmlk andMoloch to aSyriac verbmlk meaning "to promise", a theory also supported as "the least problematic solution" by Heath Dewrell (2017).^[16] Eissfeldt's proposed meaning included both the act and the object of sacrifice.^[4] Scholars such as W. von Soden argue that the term is anominalized causative form of the verbylk/wlk, meaning "to offer", "present", and thus means "the act of presenting" or "thing presented".^[17] Kerr instead derives both the Punic and Hebrew word from the verbmlk, which he proposes meant "to own", "to possess" inProto-Semitic, only later coming to mean "to rule"; the meaning of Moloch would thus originally have been "present", "gift", and later come to mean "sacrifice".^[18]

The spelling "Moloch" follows the GreekSeptuagint and the LatinVulgate; the spelling "Molech" or "Molek" follows theTiberian vocalization of Hebrew, with "Molech" used in the EnglishKing James Bible.^[19]

The wordMoloch (מלך) occurs eight times in theMasoretic text,the standard Hebrew text of the Bible. Five of these are inLeviticus, with one in1 Kings, one in2 Kings and another inThe Book of Jeremiah. Seven instances include the Hebrewdefinite articleha- ('the') or have a prepositional form indicating the presence of the definite article.^[10] All of these texts condemn Israelites who engage in practices associated with Moloch, and most associate Moloch with the use of children as offerings.^[20]

Leviticus repeatedly forbids the practice of offering children to Moloch:

And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

— Leviticus 18:21

The majority of the Leviticus references come from a single passage of four lines:^[21]

Moreover, thou shalt say to the children of Israel: Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shallstone him with stones. I also will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people, because he hath given of his seed unto 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 giveth of his seed unto Molech, and put him not to death; 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, to go astray after Molech, from among their people.

— Leviticus 20:2–5

In 1 Kings, Solomon is portrayed as introducing the cult of Moloch to Jerusalem:

Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the detestation of Moab, in the mount that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestation of the children of Ammon.

— 1 Kings 11:7

This is the sole instance of the name Moloch occurring without the definite article in the Masoretic text: it may offer a historical origin of the Moloch cult in the Bible,^[10] or it may be a mistake forMilcom, theAmmonite god (thus the reading in some manuscripts of theSeptuagint).^[12][10]

In 2 Kings, Moloch is associated with thetophet in the valley ofGehenna when it is destroyed by kingJosiah:

And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

— 2 Kings 23:10

The same activity of causing children "to pass over the fire" is mentioned, without reference to Moloch, in numerous other verses of the Bible, such as in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10), 2 Kings (2 Kings 16:3; 17:17; 17:31; 21:6), 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6), the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5) and the Book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:21; 20:26, 31; 23:37).^[22]

Lastly, the prophetJeremiah condemns practices associated with Moloch as showing infidelity toYahweh:^[23]

And they built thehigh places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to set apart their sons and their daughters unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this abomination; to cause Judah to sin.

— Jeremiah 32:35

Given the name's similarity to the Hebrew wordmelek "king", scholars have also searched the Masoretic text to find instances ofmelek that may be mistakes for Moloch. Most scholars consider only one instance as likely a mistake, in Isaiah:^[24]

For a hearth is ordered of old; yea, for the king [melek] it is prepared, deep and large; the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.

— Isaiah 30:33

The standard text of theSeptuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, contains the name "Moloch" (Μολόχ) at 2 Kings 23:10 and Jeremiah 30:35, as in the Masoretic text, but without an article.^[10] Moreover, the Septuagint uses the name Moloch inAmos where it is not found in the Masoretic text:

You even took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Raiphan, models of them which you made for yourselves.

— Amos 5:26,^[25] cf. MasoreticAmos 5:26

Additionally, some Greek manuscripts ofZephaniah 1:5 contain the name "Moloch" or "Milcom" rather than the Masoretic text's "their king," the reading also found in the standard Septuagint. Many English translations follow one or the other of these variants, reading either "Moloch" or "Milcom".^[26] However, instead of "Moloch", theSeptuagint translates the instances of Moloch in Leviticus as "ruler" (ἄρχων), and as "king" (βασιλεύς) at 1 Kings 11:7.^[12][b]

The Greek version of Amos with Moloch is quoted in theNew Testament and accounts for the one occurrence of Moloch there (Acts 7:43).^[12]

Before 1935, all scholars held that Moloch was a pagan deity,^[3] to whom child sacrifice was offered at the Jerusalemtophet.^[4] Some modern scholars have proposed that Moloch may be the same god as Milcom,Adad-Milki, or an epithet forBaal.^[27]

G. C. Heider and John Day connect Moloch with a deityMlk attested atUgarit andMalik attested inMesopotamia and proposes that he was a god of theunderworld, as in MesopotamiaMalik is twice equated with the underworld godNergal. Day also notes that Isaiah seems to associate Moloch withSheol.^[28] The Ugaritic deityMlk also appears to be associated with the underworld,^[21] and the similarly namedPhoenician godMelqart (literally "king of the city") could have underworld associations if "city" is understood to mean "underworld", as proposed byWilliam F. Albright.^[21] Heider also argued that there was also anAkkadian termmaliku referring to the shades of the dead.^[17][29]

The notion that Moloch is the name of a deity has been challenged for several reasons. Moloch is rarely mentioned in the Bible, is not mentioned at all outside of it, and connections to other deities with similar names are uncertain.^[4] Moreover, it is possible that some of the supposed deities namedMlk are epithets for another god, given thatmlk can also mean "king".^[30] The Israelite rite conforms, on the other hand, to the Punicmlk rite in that both involved the sacrifice of children.^[31] None of the proposed gods Moloch could be identified with are associated with human sacrifice, the godMlk of Ugarit appears to have only received animal sacrifice, and themlk sacrifice is never offered to a god namedMlk but rather to another deity.^[17]

Brian Schmidt argues that the use of Moloch without an article at 1 Kings 11:7 and the use of Moloch as a proper name without an article in the Septuagint may indicate that there was a tradition of a god Moloch when the Bible was originally composed. However, this god may have only existed in the imagination of the composers of the Bible rather than in historical reality.^[10]

In 1935,Otto Eissfeldt proposed, on the basis ofPunic inscriptions, that Moloch was a form of sacrifice rather than a deity.^[4] Punic inscriptions commonly associate the wordmlk with three other words:ʾmr (lamb),bʿl (citizen) andʾdm (human being).bʿl andʾdm never occur in the same description and appear to be interchangeable.^[32] Other words that sometimes occur arebšr (flesh).^[17] When put together withmlk, these words indicate a "mlk-sacrifice consisting of...".^[32] The Biblical termlammolekh would thus be translated not as "to Moloch", as normally translated, but as "as a molk-sacrifice", a meaning consistent with uses of the Hebrew prepositionla elsewhere.^[33] Bennie Reynolds further argues that Jeremiah's use ofMoloch in conjunction withBaal in Jer 32:35 is parallel to his use of "burnt offering" and Baal in Jeremiah 19:4–5.^[34]

The view that Moloch refers to a type of sacrifice was challenged by John Day and George Heider in the 1980s.^[35] Day and Heider argued that it was unlikely that biblical commentators had misunderstood an earlier term for a sacrifice as a deity and that Leviticus 20:5's mention of "whoring after Moloch" necessarily implied that Moloch was a god.^[36][37] Day and Heider nevertheless accepted thatmlk was a sacrificial term in Punic, but argue that it did not originate in Phoenicia and that it was not brought back to Phoenicia by the Punic diaspora. More recently, Anthony Frendo argues that the Hebrew equivalent to Punicylk (the root of Punicmlk) is the verb‘br "to pass over"; in Frendo's view, this means that the Hebrew Moloch is not derived from the same root as Punicmlk.^[38]

Since Day's and Heider's objections, a growing number of scholars have come to believe that Moloch refers to themulk sacrifice rather than a deity.^[5]Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that "because both Heider and Day accept Eissfeldt's interpretation of Phoenician-Punicmlk as a sacrificial term, their positions are at once compromised by the possibility that biblicalmōlekh could well function in a similar way as a technical term for a type of sacrifice".^[39] She further argues that "whoring after Moloch" does not need to imply a deity asmlk refers to both the act of sacrificing and the thing sacrificed, allowing an interpretation of "whor[ing] after the mlk-offering".^[39] Heath Dewrell argues that the translation of Leviticus 20:5 in theSeptuagint, which substitutesGreek:ἄρχοντας "archons, princes" forMoloch, implies that the biblicalurtext did not include the phrase "whoring after Moloch".^[40] Bennie Reynolds further notes that at least one inscription fromTyre does appear to mentionmlk sacrifice (RES 367); therefore Day and Heider are incorrect that the practice is unattested in Canaan (Phoenicia). Reynolds also argues for further parallels.^[41] However, Dewrell argues that the inscription is probably a modern forgery based on the unusual layout of the text and linguistic abnormalities, among other reasons.^[42]

Among scholars who believe that Moloch refers to a form of sacrifice, debate remains as to whether the Israelitemlk sacrifices were offered to Yahweh or another deity.^[6] Armin Lange suggests that theBinding of Isaac represents amlk-sacrifice to Yahweh in which the child is finally substituted with a sheep, noting that Isaac was meant to be a burnt offering.^[43] This opinion is shared by Stavrakopoulou, who also points to the sacrifice ofJephthah of his daughter as a burnt offering.^[22] Frendo, while he argues thatMoloch refers to a god, accepts Stavrakopoulou's argument that the sacrifices in the tophet were originally to Yahweh.^[44] Dewrell argues that althoughmlk sacrifices were offered to Yahweh, they were distinct from other forms of human or child sacrifice found in the Bible (such as that of Jephthah) and were a foreign custom imported by the Israelites from the Phoenicians during the reign ofAhaz.^[45]

Because the name "Moloch" is almost always accompanied by the definite article in Hebrew, it is possible that it is a title meaning "the king", as it is sometimes translated in theSeptuagint.^[10] In the twentieth century, the philosopherMartin Buber proposed that "Moloch" referred to "Melekh Yahweh".^[46] A similar view was later expressed by T. Römer (1999).^[47] Brian Schmidt, however, argues that the mention of Baal in Jeremiah 32:35 suggests that "the ruler" could have instead referred to Baal.^[10]

A minority of scholars,^[22] mainly scholars ofPunic studies,^[6] has argued that the ceremonies to Moloch are in fact a non-lethal dedication ceremony rather than a sacrifice. These theories are partially supported by commentary in theTalmud and among early Jewish commentators of the Bible.^[22] Rejecting such arguments, Paolo Xella and Francesca Stavrakopoulou note that the Bible explicitly connects the ritual to Moloch at the tophet with the verbs indicating slaughter, killing in sacrifice, deities "eating" the children, andholocaust.^[22] Xella also refers to Carthaginian and Phoenician child sacrifice found referenced in Greco-Roman sources.^[48]

The oldest classical rabbinical texts, themishnah (3rd century CE) andTalmud (200s CE) include the Leviticus prohibitions of giving one's seed to Moloch, but do not clearly describe what this might have historically entailed.^[49] Earlymidrash regarded the prohibition to giving one's seed to Moloch at Leviticus 21:18 as no longer applicable in a literal sense. TheMekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael explains that Moloch refers to any foreign religion, whileMegillah in theBabylonian Talmud explains that Moloch refers to the gentiles.^[50] Likewise, thelate antiqueTargum Neofiti and theTargum Pseudo-Jonathan, interpret the verse to mean a Jewish man having sex with a gentile.^[51] The earlierBook of Jubilees (2nd century BCE) shows that this reinterpretation was known already during theSecond Temple Period; Jubilees uses the story ofDinah to show that marrying one's daughter to a gentile was also forbidden (Jubilees 30:10).^[52] Such non-literal interpretations are condemned in the Mishnah (Megilla 4:9).^[49]

Medieval rabbis argued about whether the prohibition of giving to Moloch referred to sacrifice or something else. For instance,Menachem Meiri (1249–1315) argued that "giving one's seed unto Moloch" referred to an initiation rite and not a form of idolatry or sacrifice.^[49] Other rabbis disagreed. The 8th or 9th-century midrashTanḥuma B, gives a detailed description of Moloch worship in which the Moloch idol has the face of a calf and offerings are placed in its outstretched hands to be burned.^[49] This portrayal has no basis in the Bible or Talmud and probably derives from sources such asDiodorus Siculus on Carthaginian child sacrifice as well as various other classical portrayals of gruesome sacrifice.^[53][54] The rabbisRashi (1040–1105) andJoseph ben Isaac Bekhor Shor (12th century) may rely on Tanḥuma B when they provide their own description of Moloch sacrifices in their commentaries.^[49] The medieval rabbinical tradition also associated Moloch with other similarly named deities mentioned in the Bible such asMilcom,Adrammelek, andAnammelech.^[55]

TheChurch fathers only discuss Moloch occasionally,^[55] mostly in commentaries on the Book of Amos or the Acts of the Apostles (whereStephen summarizes the Old Testament before being martyred). Early Christian commentators mostly either used Moloch to show the sinfulness of the Jews or to exhort Christians to morality.^[56] Discussion of Moloch is also rare during the medieval period, and was mostly limited to providing descriptions of what the commentators believed Moloch sacrifice entailed.^[57] Such descriptions, as found inNicholas of Lyra (1270–1349), derive from the rabbinical tradition.^[58]

During theReformation, on the other hand, protestant commentators such asJohn Calvin andMartin Luther used Moloch as a warning against falling into idolatry and to disparage Catholic practices.^[57]Jehovah's Witnesses understand Moloch as a god of worship of the state, following ideas first expressed by Scottish ministerAlexander Hislop (1807–1865).^[59]

Images of Moloch did not grow popular until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Western culture began to experience a fascination with demons.^[1] These images tend to portray Moloch as a bull- or lion-headed humanoid idol, sometimes with wings, with arms outstretched over a fire, onto which the sacrificial child is placed.^[7][1] This portrayal can be traced to medieval Jewish commentaries such as that byRashi, which connected the biblical Moloch with depictions ofCarthaginian sacrifice toCronus (Baal Hammon) found in sources such asDiodorus, with George Foot Moore suggesting that the bull's head may derive from the mythologicalMinotaur.^[60] John S. Rundin suggests that further sources for the image are the legend ofTalos and thebrazen bull built for kingPhalaris of the Greek city ofAcragas onSicily. He notes that both legends, as well as that of the Minotaur, have potential associations with Semitic child sacrifice.^[61]

In contrast,William Blake portrayed Moloch as an entirely humanoid idol with a winged demon soaring above in his "Flight of Moloch" one of hisillustrations of Milton's poem "On the Morning of Christ's Nativity".^[1]

Moloch appears as a child-eating fallen angel inJohn Milton's epic poemParadise Lost (1667). He is described as "horrid king besmeared with blood / Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears" (1:392–393) and leads the procession of rebel angels.^[62] Later, Moloch is the first speaker at the council of hell and advocates for open war against heaven.^[63] Milton's description of Moloch is one of the most influential for modern conceptions of this demon or deity.^[19] Milton also mentions Moloch in his poem "On the Morning of Christ's Nativity", where he flees from his grisly altars.^[62] Similar portrayals of Moloch as inParadise Lost can be found inFriedrich Gottlieb Klopstock's epic poemMessias (1748–1773),^[8] and inAlfred, Lord Tennyson's poemThe Dawn, where Moloch represents thebarbarism of past ages.^[63]

InGustave Flaubert'sSalammbô, ahistorical novel aboutCarthage published in 1862, Moloch is a Carthaginian god who embodies the male principle and the destructive power of the sun.^[64] Additionally, Moloch is portrayed as the husband of the Carthaginian goddessTanit.^[65] Sacrifices to Moloch are described at length in chapter 13.^[62] The sacrifices are portrayed in anorientalist and exoticized fashion, with children sacrificed in increasing numbers to burning furnaces found in the statue of the god.^[66] Flaubert defended his portrayal against criticism by saying it was based on the description of Carthaginian child sacrifice found inDiodorus Siculus.^[64]

From the nineteenth century onward, Moloch has often been used in literature as a metaphor for some form of social, economic or military oppression, as inCharles Dickens' novellaThe Haunted Man (1848),Alexander Kuprin's novelMoloch (1896), andAllen Ginsberg's long poemHowl (1956), where Moloch symbolizes American capitalism.^[62]

Moloch is also often used to describe something that debases society and feeds on its children, as inPercy Bysshe Shelley's long poemPeter Bell the Third (1839),Herman Melville's poemThe March into Virginia (1866) about theAmerican Civil War, andJoseph Seamon Cotter, Jr.'s poemMoloch (1921) about theFirst World War.^[62]

In modern times, a metaphorical meaning of Moloch as a destructive force or system that demands sacrifice, particularly of children, has become common. Beginning withSamuel Laing'sNational Distress (1844), the modern city is often described as a Moloch, an idea found also inKarl Marx; additionally, war often comes to be described as Moloch.^[8]

TheMunich Cosmic Circle (c. 1900) used Moloch to describe a person operating under coldrationalism, something they viewed as causing the degeneration of Western civilization.^[67] Conservative Christians often rhetorically equateabortion with the sacrifice of children to Moloch.^[59]Bertrand Russell, on the other hand, used Moloch to describe a kind of cruel, primitive religion inA Freeman's Worship (1923); he then used it to attack religion more generally.^[67]

The 1914 Italian filmCabiria is set in Carthage and is loosely based on Flaubert'sSalammbô.^[68] The film features a bronzed, full-three dimensional statue of Moloch which is today kept inNational Museum of Cinema inTurin, Italy.^[1] The titular female slave Cabiria is saved from the priests of Moloch just before she was to be sacrificed to the idol during the night.^[69] The depiction of the sacrifices to Moloch are based on Flaubert's descriptions, while the entrance of Moloch's temple is modeled on ahellmouth.Cabiria's depiction of the temple and statue of Moloch would go on to influence other filmic depictions of Moloch, such as that inFritz Lang'sMetropolis (1927), in which it is workers rather than children who are sacrificed, andSergio Leone'sThe Colossus of Rhodes (1961).^[70]

Moloch has continued to be used as a name for horrific figures who are depicted as connected to the demon or god but often bear little resemblance to the traditional image. This includes television appearances inStargate SG1 as an alien villain, inBuffy the Vampire Slayer,Supernatural, andSleepy Hollow.^[1]

• Idolatry
• Lamia
• Laon

Informational notes

Citations

•   Media related toMoloch at Wikimedia Commons
•   The dictionary definition ofMoloch at Wiktionary