Molek: Dead or Alive? The Meaning and Derivation of mlk and êìî

Bennie H. Reynolds, University of North Carolina

You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord (Lev. 18:21, NRSV) Leviticus 18:21 is the first of several mentions in the Hebrew Bible of a child sacrifice directed êìîì.1 Through the course of history, most interpreters have chosen to read êìîì in precisely the same way that the NRSV chooses to: a compound of the preposition ì and a divine name êìî. Certain archaeological discoveries at the beginning of the 20th century, however, have modified our understanding of what the term êìîì might have originally connoted. After nearly a century of debate, however, the question still remains: Was a god named Molek offered (human) sacrifices in Israel? Serious discussion of the question began properly in 1935 with a mon- ograph by Otto Eissfeldt.2 His daring title, “Molk as Sacrificial-term in Punic and Hebrew and the End of the God Molok,” declared that such a god was a later invention. Several contributions have been made to the subject over the last three quarters of the century, but there has been a renewed interest since the mid-1980’s. Three major books have appeared in the last 25 years,3 and three articles and / or book chapters

1 Lev 18:21, 20:2–5; 1 Kgs 11:7; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:35. 2 Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1935). 3 John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (New York: Cam- bridge University Press, 1989). George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment, JSOTSup 43 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). Paul G. Mosca, “Child Sacrifice in Canaan- ite and Israelite Religion: A Study in Mulk and êìî” (Unpublished Harvard PhD diss, 1975). Only the first two of these books has been published, but I have received personal communication from the author of the third that it is soon to be published. 134 BENNIE H. REYNOLDS dealing with the subject have appeared in the 90’s.4 This paper will of- fer evidence why the Phoenician / Punic term mlk as well as the Hebrew term êìîì are best explained as causative participles of the root hlk—not as divine names. This will be accomplished in four steps: (i) Gleaning pieces of research from published work and grafting together impor- tant elements, (ii) Submitting some previously unconsidered evidence (or significant reinterpretations of some evidence) with respect to sev- eral Phoenician inscriptions, (iii)Offering some fresh insights on several pieces of Biblical evidence, and (iv) Consideration of possible attesta- tions of the sacrificial term mlk in Anatolia and the Levant.

I.

The first synthesis of research was presented by Eissfeldt. A small back- ground to his position is needed. Since at least 1921, scholars have claimed to have found tophetim.5 These are purported to be sites of child sacrifice (or at least the burial grounds of sacrificed children) throughout the Phoenician-Punic world, including mainland Phoenicia.6 These sites were first identified based on the accounts of classical authors as

4 Edward Lipinski, “Rites et sacrifices dans la tradition Phénico-Punique,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991, ed. J. Quaegebeur (Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 257–81. Klaas Smelik, “Moloch, Molekh or Molk-Sacrifice? A Reassess- ment of the Evidence Concerning the Hebrew Term Molekh,” SJOT 9 (1995): 133–42. Klaus Koch, “Molek astral,” in Mythos im Alten Testament und Seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 29–50. 5 1921 refers to the discovery of the tophet at Carthage. In reality, two others had al- ready been discovered unwittingly at Nora (1889) and Motya (1919). It was the discovery at Carthage that marked a new moment in the discussion. Cf. Michel Gras, Pierre Rouil- lard, and Javier Teixidor, “The Phoenicians and Death,” trans. Helga Seeden, Ber xxxix (1991): 127–76, esp. 150–52. 6 Ibid., 150 ff. Also, William F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Histor- ical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1968), 237– 44. Shelby Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context, JSOR / ASOR Monograph Series 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 37–75. John Andrew Dearman, “The Tophet in Jerusalem: Archaeology and Cultural Profile,” JNSL 22 / 1 (1996): 59–71. Helga Seeden, “A Tophet in Tyre?” Ber xxxix (1991): 39–82. Colette Picard, “Le Monument de Nebi-Yunis,” RB 83 (1976): Charles Kennedy, “Tartessos, Tarshish and Tartarus: Tower of Pozo Moro and the Bible,” (unpublished essay presented to the First International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Salamanca, Spain, 1983), quoted extensively in Heider, The Cult of Molek, 189– 92. Lawrence Stager and Samuel R. Wolff, “Child Sacrifice at Carthage: Religious Rite