Why do scholars think Molech wasn’t a deity?

Article

Molech isn’t a deity but instead a type of sacrifice (mlk). The epigraphy of the tophet names a god the מלך is given to. The name of the specific act of offering or sacrifice in the tophet was therefore mlk. O. Eissfeldt, followed by J.-G. Février, had connected the noun with the verbal root that, in the simple form, means “to go” (ylk, in Phoenician). In the causative (“to cause to go”), it would have taken on the meaning of “to offer in sacrifice”. Février made a comparison with Hebrew, in which the noun ‘ôlāh, “holocaust”, is derived from ‘lh, “to go up”.

The first discoveries

Evidence supports the definition of the tophet as a place of worship. On the tophet as a city sanctuary, cf. for example (BONDÌ 1979 or ACQUARO 1993). It was an urban sanctuary, where infants and small animals, sometimes as substitutes, were sacrificed to specific deities (in the West: Ba‘l Hamon or Ba‘l Hamon and Tinnit, as we shall see); their burnt remains were then preserved in pottery containers, in situ, after specific rites. These sacrifices were sometimes commemorated by an inscription. At that time, since there were no inscriptions and the buried remains were not identified as belonging to infants, it was interpreted (by G. Patroni) as a necropolis for cremation (VIVANET 1891, quoted by MOSCATI 1982; cf. GRAS – ROUILLARD – TEIXIDOR 1989: 194, n. 33). The initial analyses of the cremated remains, made by P. Pallary in 1922, showed that the urns/vases contained remains of new-born infants and/or of small animals, usually sheep, and opened up the discussion on the nature of the place discovered. Several decades later, J. Richard made further analyses of burnt remains from Carthage and Sousse (Hadrumetum), with similar results10. This seemed to confirm the connection between these remains and the information provided by classical sources and biblical passages, from which the name tophet was taken11. Later on, this connection seemed to be confirmed by iconography: on a stela found in Carthage a male person – identified as a priest – was depicted holding a baby, considered to be the sacrificial victim (LANCEL 1992: 249-250, fig. 122).

The inclusion of epigraphic evidence

Systematic excavation at Carthage began only after a large number of stelae of uncertain provenance – inscribed and not – had been sold to individuals or institutions. During the excavations in the area then identified as a tophet, it was confirmed that memorial stones and, later, stelae (the monuments that had attracted the attention of scholars and collectors) were placed on top of the urns containing the cremated remains. These monuments, when inscribed, provided most of the material for the publication of the first part of the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS), which was devoted to Phoenician inscriptions. Initiated by Ernest Renan in 1868, the CIS concentrated almost exclusively on the publication of finds from the area of the Carthage tophet from the third fasciculus of the first volume (published in 1885) on. As a result, epigraphy became a basic resource, given not only the abundance of the evidence but also its direct and explicit nature, in attempts to interpret the tophet. In fact, the memorial stones and stelae found in these sanctuaries bore texts from their earliest phases, but the number of inscriptions increased over time and especially during the final centuries of Carthage. They were dedications addressed to the god Ba‘l Hamon and from around the 5th century at Carthage, to the goddess Tinnit, invoked (in first position) together with him. Like many other Phoenician-Punic votive inscriptions, the dedications included the formula indicating that the vow had been made because the god(s) had heard the prayer of the dedicator or so that he would be heard.

Image

Even if the offering was not usually specifically defined in the later and more numerous stelae, it was stated explicitly in the oldest inscriptions (found as early as the 7th century BCE, on monuments from Carthage and Malta). These show that the expressions used in archaic times persisted, to some extent – with some variants and peculiarities in individual centres – until about the 1st century BCE – 1st century AD (at Guelma, ancient Calama, in Algeria).


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *