to Molek. The name is found five times in Leviticus (18:21; 20:2,
3, 4, 5) and in 2 Kgs 11:7 (where, however, for mōlek, read milkōm, BHS); 23:10; Jer 32:35, and probably Isa
30:33; 57:9 and Zeph 1:5 (melek > mōlek). It probably means “ruler.” But
who is Molek? A number of proposals follow in their chronological order:
1. The oldest is that of R. Ḥanina
b. Antigonus: the name Molek “teaches that the same law applies to whatever
they proclaimed as king, even a pebble or a splinter” (b. Sanh. 64a). According
to his statement, Molek relates to the noun melek
‘king’ or the participle mōlēk ‘(the
one who) rules’ (supported by LXX archon),
but also to idolatry of any kind. However, despite the definite article, the
word must be a proper name, as will be discussed below.
2. Mōlek stands for (or should be read as) the Ammonite god milkōm (Ibn Ezra, Ramban). Supporting
this identification is that one attestation of mōlek (1 Kgs 11:7) should be read milkōm (LXXL; Pesh.). However, this identification must
be rejected not only because 1 Kgs 11:7 expressly labels this god as “the
abomination of the Ammonites” (cf. 1 Kgs 11:5, 7), but also because 2 Kgs
23:10, 13 clearly distinguish between the two deities and specify that the cult
center of Milcom was not in the Hinnom Valley but at a site south of Jerusalem.
3. The rabbinic view (no. 1) was
revived by Geiger (1857: 301), but explained differently: the original name melek was distorted as mōlek in order to echo the word bōšet ‘shame’. As evidence, Geiger
pointed to Ishbaal (1 Chr 8:33; 9:39) also attested as Ish-bosheth (2 Sam
2:10), Merib-baal (1 Chr 8:34; 9:40) occurring as Mephibosheth (e.g., 2 Sam
4:4), Jerubbaal (Judg 6:32) as Jerubbesheth (2 Sam 11:21), and the goddess
Astarte/Ashtart regularly found as Ashtoreth (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:5, 33). This view
is vigorously supported by Day (1989: 56–58). It is contested by Tsevat (1975),
who argues for the retention of MT mōlek,
and by Heider (1985: 223–28), who opts for the participle mōlēk, but their own proposals have, in my opinion, been decisively
refuted by Day (1989: 56–58).
4. In 1935, Eissfeldt (later
amplified by Mosca 1975; Ackerman 1992: 131–37; Müller 1995) proposed the
radical view that Molek was not the name of a deity, but a kind of sacrifice
(accepted but modified by de Vaux 1964: 73–90; Müller 1984; Stager and Wolff
1984: 47) on the basis of alleged Punic evidence. Eissfeldt’s thesis, however,
has been challenged by a number of scholars (see Weinfeld 1972a: 133–40; Day
1989: 4–13), and today, to my knowledge, only few seriously adhere to this view
(Edelman 1987; Smith 1990: 132–38). Decisive evidence is provided by the Bible
itself: the expression liznôt ʾaḥărê
hammōlek ‘to go astray after Molek’ (20:5) can in no way refer to a
sacrifice; on the contrary, the expression zānâ
ʾaḥărê consistently refers to the pursuit of other gods (e.g., Exod 34:15,
16; Deut 31:16; Ezek 6:9; 20:30)—a point overlooked by Edelman in her defense
of Eissfeldt and Mosca.
A preliminary reading of the
recently discovered (as yet unpublished) eighth-century Incirli (eastern
Turkey) stele contains the terms mlk
swsym, mlk ʾdm, mlk bn bkr, namely, mlk
of horses, men and cattle, which certainly demonstrates that mlk denotes “gift, tribute.” However,
the language is Phoenician, and in the latter’s ambience, as Eissfeldt (1935)
has shown, this is precisely the meaning of mlk—but
not in the Bible. A note from Stephen Kaufman (Feb. 20, 1997), who together
with Bruce Zuckerman is publishing the inscription, informs me that they have a
completely new reading. The term mlk,
however, remains the same, “sacrifice,” but it seems to refer to prisoners of
war.
5. Berlin (1994: 76–77) following
Ehrlich among others, translates malkām
(Zeph 1:5) as “their melekh”—that is, their Molek god—and therefore proposes
“that Molekh or melek is not the
personal name of a specific god, but rather an epithet that could be applied to
any god connected with the fire ritual.” For support, she points to “the
Sepharirtes burned their children to Adrammelech (= Adadmelech: Mazar 1950:
116–17) and Anammelech” (2 Kgs 17:31) and the fact that Molek always appears
with a definite article (except in 1 Kgs 11:7, where the reference is to
Milcom; see no. 2).
However, melek in the above-cited theophoric names can just be proper names,
an instance where two gods have been fused, as Hadadrimmon (Zech 12:11),
meaning “Hadad is Rimmon” (Rimmon / rammān
‘the thunderer’ [cf. Greenfield 1976] is an independent deity; cf. 2 Kgs 5:18);
Baʿlu-Haddu in the Amarna letters; Šamši-Adad, an Assyrian monarch; and ʾēl ʿelyôn (Gen 14:18–20, 22). That the
last originally referred to two deities is conclusively demonstrated by ʿēl wĕʿalyān in Sefire A11; so, too,
among the Phoenicians (cf. Philo of Byblos) and the Hurrians-Hittites. To be
sure, in the Bible ʿelyôn is an
epithet of El ‘the most high’, but there can be no doubt that originally it was
an independent deity (cf. Lack 1962; Rendtorff 1967b; Cross 1973: 50–52).
Finally, it is not insignificant that most scholars date the composition of
Zephaniah in the reign of Josiah, as stated in the superscription, in the
prereform period—when Molek worship still flourished (cf. 2 Kgs 23:10). Thus I
regard malkām (Zeph 1:5) as an error
for mōlek (but see the reservations
of Berlin 1994: 33–43, based on Ben Zvi 1991a). As for the definite article,
the MT must be evaluated by the millennium-older LXX, which consistently omits
the article in all its attestations. It may have been deliberately inserted by
the Masoretes to eliminate its association with a specific deity in conformance
with the rabbinic interpretation (no. 1).
Nonetheless and notwithstanding
all the above objections, it cannot be doubted that the consistent presence of
the definite article is a weighty contention. The mōlek is comparable to the baʿal,
which similarly is always affixed with a definite article. That baʿal can serve as a generic and not as
the name of a specific deity is evidenced by the many occurrences of the plural
bĕʿālîm. The evidence is marshaled in
the note on “and thereby not desecrate the name of your God,” below. Thus the
possibility must be granted that mōlek
is also not a personal name but a title, in which case Geiger’s (1857: 301)
suggestion mōlek < melek ‘king’ (no. 3) might be sustained.
A doubt, however, still remains concerning Berlin’s (1994) proposal as the
plural mĕlākîm is not attested. Thus
if mōlek / melek is a title, it could be that of a specific deity (see further
below).
6. There can be no question that
a deity mlk was known in the ancient
Near East, as attested by the theophoric element in Akkadian Adad-milki (Weinfeld 1972a: 144–49; but
cf. Day 1989: 41–46; Ackerman 1992: 128–30); Ugaritic mlk (KTU 1.100, 1. 41;
1.107, 1. 17); a god mlk/Malik, who
appears in various personal names from Ebla and Mari; and an angel of hell,
Mālik, attested in the Koran 43:77. His original provenance, however, is
disputed: Phoenicia (de Vaux 1964: 75–90), Mesopotamia (Weinfeld 1972a), or
Syro-Palestine (Heider 1985; 1995). The origin of the cult would by itself not
be a productive inquiry, but the evidence produced by Heider that biblical
Molek stems from a chthonic Mesopotamian deity Malik is of extreme
significance, and it is developed in chap. 20, comment b. Suffice it here to
add that Day (1989: 24–31; now supported by Heider 1992: 897b) supports
Heider’s view but argues, convincingly in my opinion, that Israel derives its
Molek cult directly from the Canaanites. It is also possible that the cult of
Molek was imported by the Sepharvites whom the Assyrians settled in North
Israel at the end of the eighth century (2 Kgs 17:31). They probably stemmed
from Syria, to judge by the name of their god Adrammelekh, a misspelling of
Adadmelekh ‘Adad-is-King’ (Levine 1989a: 260; see also Cogan and Tadmor 1988:
212). MT Adrammelekh, however, is defended by Millard (1995), who derives it
from ʾaddîr-melek ‘The glorious one
is king’ or ʾaddîr-molek ‘Molek is
king’. Molek sacrifices were offered in the Valley of Hinnom, just below the
western side of the Temple Mount at the Topheth (a word cognate with Aramaic tapyā and Syriac tĕpayā/tĕpāyā meaning
“furnace, fire-place”; see Day 1989: 24–28).
7. The most recent view is that
of Gerstenberger (1996: 292), who is presumably forced by his postexilic
assumptions to postulate that Molek is a “fictitious deity” invented by later
theologians in order “to cleanse YHWH from the suspicion of having actually
demanded such an abomination” as child sacrifice. No comment required.
In sum, only interpretations nos.
3, 5, and 6 thus far remain viable. As will be argued below (see note on “and
thereby not desecrate the name of your God”), all three are partially correct.
Most likely, mōlek stands for Malik,
a Mesopotamian chthonic deity whose cult was transmitted to Israel via the
Canaanites (no. 6), and, possibly, it is the title of a (other?) chthonic deity
(deities?) (no. 5). Many in the populace (in contrast to priestly and prophetic
circles) vocalized the name as ḥammelek,
‘the king’, and thereby believed that their worship was entirely legitimate.
The Masoretes, on their part, vocalized Malik as mōlek in order to deride it. It may be of significance that the one
case that seems to have escaped the notice of the Masoretes is the word lammelek in Isa 30:33. To be sure, the
Masoretes retained this pronunciation because they assumed that this title
referred to the king of Assyria, who, in their view, would be offered on the
Tophet as part of YHWH’s forthcoming universal purge (see also v. 31). However,
the greater likelihood is that this vocalization preserves the actual name of
the deity worshiped by the general populace, an indication of its association
with YHWH. In any case, the medium of worship was child sacrifice.
Finally, the question of why
Molek worship was inserted among laws banning illicit sexual practices must be
addressed: six solutions have been offered, the first four of which are cited
by Hartley (1992: 336–37):
1. “The offering of children to
Molek (could) threaten a clan’s solidarity or cause great discord among family
members.” But what if the clan accepts child sacrifice as part of its culture,
as did the Carthaginians and other Punic settlements?
2. Molek worship is “considered
abhorrent and extremely defiling.” But so are other idolatrous practices
labeled tôʿēbâ ‘abomination’ (cf.
Deut 12:31; 13:15; 17:4; 27:15), and yet they are not included in Lev 18.
Moreover, Molek worship is singularly condemned as a desecration of God’s name
(v. 21b), not as an abomination.
3. “The Israelite social
consciousness connected them”—that is, incest with idolatry. Again, the
exclusive focus on Molek is left unexplained.
4. “Molek worship may be
associated with ancestral worship, making it more understandable why these laws
against Molek have been placed with other laws regarding intimate family
matters.” As will be shown (see chap. 20, comment b), the assumption that Molek
was an underworld deity associated with the worship of the dead can be
validated. It will also be shown (see chap. 20, comment c) that ancestor
worship was rife in ancient Israel, particularly during the eighth century, the
time of the composition of most of H, and that, plausibly, Molek was a vaunted
instrument by which the departed ancestors could be consulted (hence the
juxtaposition of necromancy with Molek, 20:1–6). However, the ʾôb and yiddĕʿōnî, whose necromantic credentials are beyond question (see
chap. 20, comment b), are not listed in Lev 18. Indeed, as I shall argue, what
singles out Molek from all other necromantic mediums is his identification with
YHWH, the god of Israel, as intimated by the motive clause attached to the
Molek prohibition (v. 21b; see below).
5. Child sacrifice, particularly
on the scale practiced in Carthage, may have been a means of controlling
population, of consolidating patrimony, or of providing a hedge against poverty
(Stager and Wolff 1984: 50). The inalienable worth of each individual as having
been created in the divine image would, for the biblical authors, have led to
the designation of child sacrifice as murder, punishable by death (20:2). This
reason, however, might have applied to urbanized, territorially limited
Carthage, but not to Israel, in any period. Moreover, Molek worship was
sporadic, infrequent. For population control, one would have expected child
sacrifices on an extensive scale, like that in Carthage.
6. Schwartz (forthcoming)
suggests that Molek worship was included among prohibited sexual unions because
both were labeled tôʿēbōt
‘abominations’ for which the expulsion of the Canaanites did, and the
Israelites would, take place (vv. 25–28). Strikingly, the same rationale is
cited by the deuteronomist: “Let no one be found among you who consigns [maʿăbîr] his son or daughter to the
fire.… For anyone who does such things is abhorrent to YHWH [tôʿăbat YHWH], and
it is because of these abhorrent things [hattôʿēbōt
hāʾēlleh] that YHWH your God is dispossessing them before you” (Deut
18:10–12). Thus both H and D cite Molek worship as a cause for the expulsion of
the Canaanites, but whereas D lists Molek among other abominable magical rites,
H adds it to its list of abominable sexual practices. Furthermore, elsewhere
the H legist uses the verb zānâ
‘whore’ in describing Molek worship (20:5 [bis]), thereby associating it with a
sexual offense (M. Hildenbrand).
As for the placement of the Molek
prohibition after v. 20, Schwartz (forthcoming) points to the repetition of the
words tittēn and zeraʿ in v. 21, which has caused the redundance of tittēn and lĕhaʿăbîr, both meaning, in essence, “dedicate,” instead of the use
of either tittēn or taʿăbîr.
Finally, what makes Molek worship
such an egregious crime is that it was practiced in God’s land by the
Canaanites, causing its pollution and the expulsion of its inhabitants (a view
also held by D; cf. Deut 18:9–12), a fate that awaits Israel if it does the
same (Lev 18:24–30).
In sum, H found it necessary to
incorporate Molek into this chapter because it held that the violation of two
prohibitions incumbent on and practiced by the Canaanites—Molek worship and
illicit sexual unions—would also condemn Israel to destruction and exile. (Jacob
Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 3A; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2008], 1555-59)
