Talk:Moloch

Contents

1 Article rewrite by Jallan 2 Ezekiel passage 3 Flaubert novel 4 lmlk 5 For the Wikipedia reader 6 problem section 7 Morlocks

Article rewrite by Jallan

User:Jallan has done an outstanding rewrite here. more than a rewrite. This sets a Wikipedia standard. Wetman 05:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I undid Trc's revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moloch&diff=4204672&oldid=4164857): the annihilation of so much work (a complete rewrite) requires an explanation longer than 200 characters. Trc, you are welcome to explain your reversion more fully on this talk page. —No-One Jones 17:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I recognize that the version prior to Jallan's edit was a mishmash. But it strikes me as unlikely that so much was wrong with the previous content, and that so much is correct about the new content. The new content is akin to a short journal article, proposing ideas and theories, leading the reader along with operative phrases rather than reporting on what different paradigms suggest. I get the sense of paradigm replacement based on novel approaches to the subject matter. The section "Pure fiction" is gratuitous, the icing on the cake: after casting doubt about earlier interpretations, a fiction is referred to, giving the article's overall outline that delicious sense of a glorious modern reproof of the past. Trc | [msg (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Trc&action=edit&section=new)] 06:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is unfortunately not unlikely that old theories long debunked or very suppositious continue to be repeated as fact and get into tertiary works, including Wikipedia. That happens in every area of knowledge. Anyone who thinks any of the material I left out or that I deprecated in my discussion is welcome to put it back, but to put it back along with trustworthy citations supporting it. I've no philosphical bias against an earlier source than Flaubert for mechanical arms or evidence for a "Moloch cult" outside of the Bible references or a Carthaginian connection if someone can provide evidence. Anyone is welcome to attempt to improve my discussion.

But neither my approach or paradigms presented were novel. The paradigms are standard ones and I reported on their implications and on criticisms made of them.

Outside of the molk sacrifice, all this is very old. My discussion is little different from that in the Moloch article in the 1899 Encyclopædia Biblica, just a going over the necessary material. See Encyclopaedia Biblica: Minni - Mordecai (http://www.cwru.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/encyl_biblica_l-p/minni-mordecai.pdf)]. See also the 1908 [Catholic Encyclopedia: Moloch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10443b.htm)] which also disassociates Moloch from Milcom and cites the theory that the sacrifices were made to Yahweh, though it argues against this, quite possibly correctly. I've no stake one way or the other. But the theory should be mentioned as readers will find it in various soruces. Neither of those older encyclopedia articles so much as bothers to acknowledge suppositious attempts to connect Moloch with Melqart or with Carthaginians. Such ideas were never unworthy of being raised as a conjecture, but have never been supported by any evidence.

Indeed the 1899 Encyclopædia Biblica notes that there is no evidence anywhere for a Moloch cult outside of Jerusalem. The only discovery since 1899 to change that is the finding in 1928 that there was such a thing as a molk sacrifice which provided a possible new interpretation, an interpretation which became the scholary consensus interpretation and may still be the most common scholarly interpretation. This should not be new or novel in 2004.

But *Sigh!* see [Encyclopedia Mythica: Moloch (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/moloch.html)] for nonsense still repeated without citation as it was in the previous version in the Wikipedia, including Flaubert's mechanical arms and the Carthage connection. The bogus material floats from tertiary reference to tertiary reference, no-one checking (or if checking, simply finding the same bogus material elsewhere). Pointing out that one source of such accounts of Moloch is Flaubert's novel rather than scholarship is, I think, important, not gratuitous. See, for example [From Infant Sacrifice to the ABC's (http://archaeology.stanford.edu/journal/newdraft/garnand/paper.pdf)] which discusses in part the attempts of historians to undo the vivid pictures which Flaubert raised.

It is gratuitous to revert a Wikipedia entry in any area of knowledge with which one is unfamiliar except on grounds of vandalism. A "sense of novel approach" should be verified. Is the approach a novel approach by the writer? Or is it only novel to a reader who is unfamiliar with normal and longstanding mainstream scholarship in a particular area? jallan 17:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ezekiel passage

Ezekiel 20.35 even suggests that Yahweh himself at some point had commanded the sacrifice of children in order to defile his people:

Moreover I gave them laws which are not good and rules by which they cannot live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts – that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am Yahweh.

The relevant verses, in some bibles at least, are Ez 20:25-26. This section of the new version is problematic because it does not take into account the understanding of how the Scriptures mean. What this verse means, rather than implying that God commanded the sacrifice of children, is that God permitted the sacrifice, and other pagan practices, so that the people should discover their rebellion against "my statutes". Ez c. 20 is filled with remonstrations about how the people are not observing the statutes, despising "my ordinances that bring life to those who keep them". But this portion of the new edit implies quite the reverse, that God actually wanted to defile His people. This is, I think, an example of a misuse of Scripture to editorialize. Let me emphasize, however, something that may have gotten lost in all this: I fully accept the inclusion of these new points of view. I reverted to encourage a better integration. I see now we shall have to work at this the other way. I am not sore or unhappy about this. I agree that User:jallan has provided some important new material. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. In any case, I consider this quoted passage, above, to be such a misuse of the Scripture cited that I have removed it from the article. Trc | [msg (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Trc&action=edit&section=new)] 20:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quite correct: the passage is Ezekiel 20:25-26. Correct it in the entry, please. The relevant context is what this verse meant to the writer and his original hearers, and perhaps to the 7th-6th century BC editors of Ezekiel. What it means to anyone since is material for the entry Ezekiel, not Moloch. What it means to any of us is not Wikipedia material, period. Please restore suppressed information, and set it in historical context if needed. Wetman 21:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It must be the height of philological speculation to suppose than an excerpted verse can magically mean the opposite of absolutely everything around it. Misuse of text is wrong in any context. Trc | [msg (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Trc&action=edit&section=new)] 02:18, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Ezekiel passage is quoted in the Moloch article in the 1899 Encyclopædidia Biblica as the strongest evidence for the theory that the offerings were considered to be to Yahweh (along with Jeremiah 7.31). Both passages are also cited in the Moloch aritlce in the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia which reponds rather weakly (in my opinion): "But this position is to say the least improbable. The texts appealed to may well be understood otherwise, and the prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy from the worship of the true God." It is cited in 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica: Moloch (http://9.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MO/MOLOCH.htm)] with the comment: "Note, also, the attitude of Ezekiel in xx. 25 seq., 31, references which cannot be explained away." The article The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Molech; Moloch (http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6121)] treats it rather strangely, remarking:

That this prophet regarded the practice as among the "statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live" (Ezekiel 20:25) given by God to His people, by way of deception and judicial punishment, as some hold, is highly improbable and inconsistent with the whole prophetic attitude toward it.

It is not clear what this means, quoting parts of the passage and paraphasing part of it and then adding "as some hold". This article shows itself elsewhere quite aware of the theory that infants were sacrificed to Yahweh. It also brings in bogus Moloch-worship in connection to Carthage. Not a good article in any case.

Three different Rabbinical interpretations of the Ezekiel passage appear at [1] (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/bad_com.htm). The interpretation by Rashi accords with the most obvious meaning, disliked by TRS, but the writer finds this inconvincing as not in accord with his own theology and prefers another interpretation. That would not be a reason to suppress Rashi's interpretation and the writer does not do so.

There is a discussion at [2] (http://shamash3.shamash.org/tanach/tanach/commentary/j-seminar/volume4/v4n37) which covers in part John Day's treatment favorably but also discusses the Ezekiel passage in respect to the problem of the people's belief (and apparently Ezekiel's beliefs) that commands which Ezekiel saw as bad came from Yahweh. Note, John Day believes Moloch is not Yahweh, but that still does not answer the problems with that passage.

In short, the passage has been long used in support of the theory that the offerings of children lmlk was understood as commanded by Yahweh. It has long been in general a problem pasage. But those who feel that it is being misinterpreted do not suppress it. It is dishonest to present a theory that has been held and still is held and suppress its strongest supporting argument. On could respond by citing the Catholic Encyclopedia response (which seems to me weak). But add it with a citation if you will. But do not suppress.

The inclusion is not editorializing by me. I am presenting various theories that are held along with evidence for and against. The Ezekiel passage is cited as part of a common argument that children were sacrificed to Yahweh and normally used as support for that argument, indeed one of the main sources for that argument. My own POV, as much as I have one, is that the evidence is confused, there are good arguments as well as weaknesses in various positions, and that one should present all sides ... though of course full discussion would be a book length article.

Your particular POV on a Biblical passages is not grounds to suppress it when cited with a different interpretation, especially when it is normally cited in the Moloch context by sources usually considered reputable, sometimes very much supporting the POV that the sacrifices were to Yahweh. Even when when that interpretation is rejected the Ezekiel passage is still cited in discussion.

I don't believe that anything I have included in this article, including the Ezekiel passage, is non-standard for discussion of Moloch. I have tried to present the vanilla arguments and give enough information to allow them to be understood. One obviously cannot agree with all sides. Moloch cannot easily be at once Yahweh, an entirely different god, the name of a kind of sacrifice. Passing through fire cannot be at the same time a human sacrifice or an initiation ceremony. But people do hold different views and the task of the article is to explain these views and give their history.

It should be obvious now that your original feeling that this material was novel was incorrect. Please let the normal statements used as arguments stand, regardless of the positions.

I am restoring the passage with some reasonable weasel words to make it clearer that this is the expounding of a point of view that is held, not necessarily everyone's interpretation. jallan 03:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I have rearranged the "Offerings to Yahweh" section with some additions and changes to partly absorb Trc's last additions as follows:

Trc inserted:

A more standard interpretation is that the prophet was, in all likelihood, implying the concept of slaughter. In some modern presentations, this segment of Isaiah is given as poetry, and thus more likely to use imagery.

I have accordingly provided the older interpretation explicitly. In fact only one line of the passage is interpreted differently. I omitted the reference to poetry because Mosca's translation is in verse form as a reader should be able to see. Also, it is obvious that Isaiah is using imagery, regardless of interpretation. My earlier account used the word imagery and I've now added it a second time if that helps. But I don't see anyone thinking that the reader should imagine Yahweh creating a physical hearth somewhere and physically placing the King of Assyria on it. By any reasonable interpretation the passage is metaphorical.

Trc inserted:

His use of Ez 20.25–26 is at odds with the remainder of Ez c.20, in which Yahweh is clearly shown to be remonstrating with the Israelites for having "despised my ordinances that bring life to those who keep them". A more standard interpretation of vv. 25–26 is simply that Yahweh permitted the people to defile themselves. Bibles tend to indicate in footnotes to this section that the theological language of the time had a tendency to attribute to Yahweh actions for which the people themselves bore responsibility.

It is not Mosca's use of those verses that is at odds with the remainder of Ezekiel 20 but the verses themselves. Nothing is clearly shown or there would not be so many interpretations of this passage, none of which, in my opinion, is compelling and some rather obviously an attempt to explain away the passage rather than explaining it. As to what Bibles tend to indicate in footnotes ... I find no such notes in a quick check of various Bibles, ... possibly not looking in the proper Bibles. But such a statement is absurd as a counter to any theory. "Gee, some Bibles somewhere in their notes, right next to Archbishop Ussher's dates, give a counter-theory; so you should believe it." As to the theory itself, I'm unaware of any such tendency in the Tanach for Yahweh to be portrayed saying he did something which he did not do in those accounts, which humans did. Of course atheists would quite accept such a theory, that since there was no Yahweh he indeed had nothing do with anything that is claimed for him, it all being either being imaginary or a mixture of human activity and natural causes.

In any case since Trc insists on concrete indication that the Ezekiel text has been intepreted otherwise, I have placed a number of other common interpretions of the passage along with sources. This somewhat burdens the article, but perhaps at some future time they might become the nucleus of a separate article Ezekiel: statutes that were not good with a link from here.

I have also added to the external links. jallan 03:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"It is not Mosca's use of those verses that is at odds with the remainder of Ezekiel 20 but the verses themselves." This is strained reasoning, as the verses occur in a context that should be taken into account. Bible notes are prepared by scholars of various kinds, and are not irrelevant. Your new paragraph containing extra interpretations is a help. Trc | [msg (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Trc&action=edit&section=new)] 04:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Flaubert novel

The section describing Flaubert's novel is in grave danger of elimination. The only sentence connecting it meaningfully to the article is the very last one, for which no example is provided. It seems unlikely that a work of fiction has been considered a source of information by anyone. I think it is added as a zingy extra, intended to lend a dashing flavor to the article. The fact is that Flaubert does not define Moloch. Trc | [msg (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Trc&action=edit&section=new)] 04:51, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

lmlk

Could this be "El Molek" that is "l" before "mlk" acting as the definite article. Thus "passing through the fire lmlk" could mean passing through the the fire of Molek.

For the Wikipedia reader

Could this entry now be given an opening paragraph that approximately answers the average reader's question: "Who or what was Moloch?" with the briefest sense of where interpretive disagreement lies? Then the interested reader might continue, into the entry as it exists. --Wetman 19:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

problem section

The following section (now in the popular culture section of the article) seems problematic to me:

Compare ancient Moloch worship (offering one's children as a burnt sacrifice) to modern suicide-attack tactics of blowing one's self up with explosives within the same region in which, historically, the inhabitants have worshipped Moloch, and that there is strong documentation of parents encouraging their children to "pass through the fire" caused by self-detonation by explosives worn on the body. This seems to indicate that although his name is no longer used, the old habits remain, much as in the same manner in which European Christians (and their American progeny) continue ancient Pagan practices in Christmas and New Year's observances (evergreen trees, mistle-toe, etc).

Apart from the fact of the odd placement within the pop culture context, the linkage of ancient and modern behaviours seems tenous, speculative and implicitly racialist in tone; some ancient Jews are thought to have worshipped Moloch, but there is no suggestion of similar behaviour as a carry-over of ancient practises by modern Israelis, nor is there any explanation of how this alleged motivation of suicide bombers in the Levant could explain similar behaviour outside the areas where Moloch was worshiped (such as Iraq, Chechnya, Indonesia etc).--Centauri 05:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Though well written, this looks like (a) a highly personal viewpoint with no citable references, (b) a thinly veiled anti-Palestinian message (e.g. "the old habits remain") and (c) an anonymous user. I'm removing. --Air 09:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Morlocks

Problems with this addition by -Ril-:

"Morlocks (based heavily on Molochs) feature as technologically advanced, but physically weak, enemies, in the famed novel The Time Machine by H.G.Wells"

1. "based heavily on Molochs" - what does this mean? Moloch is a god (singular) with no physical representation.
2. "technologically advanced" - no, H.G.Wells' Morlocks are technologically backward.
3. "physically weak" - no, Morlocks are physically strong.
4. "enemies" - of whom exactly?

The link between Morlock and Moloch has been pointed out in one or two places (http://www.colemanzone.com/forums/Message_Board/archive/747.html) but I don't see a point of any depth.

In any case I think speculation on the origins of Wells' Morlocks should be in Morlocks, not here. I'm moving it. --Air 18:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)