Talk:Moloch

Septuagint

The Original Septuagint was of the 5 ooks of Moses and only that....they did not translate the prophets. Your claim the the Septuagint translates Amos is incorrect 69.143.34.242 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that’s not true. See Septuagint.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Only the first 5 books can be conclusively dated to 1st-3rd century BCE. The other may have been written later and may have been subjected to editing by Christians (this is a common claim in Jewish apologetics). Whether they were translated later, or if the earlier versions of the translations were lost so that we can only date the later translations, isn't really known. It may have been composed over a period of time as well, but that doesn't mean the Prophets are not part of the "original Septuagint". The myth of the Septuagint is that it was translated all at once by seventy scholars, however that's not necessarily true, that there was just some instantaneous work that produced a definable "original Septuagint".2601:140:8900:61D0:400A:A562:4597:FEFF (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Moloch as an early form of Yahweh

Several well-sourced paragraphs appear to be subject of an editing dispute. If these are seen as not being appropriate for the section they are being included in, would it be more appropriate to create a new section following "Moloch as a deity" called "Moloch as a form of Yahweh" or "Moloch as an early form of Yahweh"? It seems strange to leave out core aspects of theological discussion on this subject. 87.208.148.99 (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You are edit warring over adding a 19th century position held by few or no modern scholars to a section on the current state of scholarship. At best this should go in a section on history of scholarship, as it is highly misleading to our readers to suggest that this is a current subject of debate.

Furthermore, the issue of human sacrifice is handled in other sections.—-Ermenrich (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The section being discussed begins with a reference to scholarship before 1935. Then it continues, discussing medieval Jewish scholarship. This does not delineate the section as "on the current state of scholarship." The textual theory equating Yahweh and Moloch is even in recent years still commonly mentioned in academic discussion of the subject and is treated as important historical context in scholarly overviews. The specific references cited in the paragraphs added are still being cited by mainstream religious studies scholars even in recent years.

Here's a source from 1995 discussing and implicitly endorsing what you falsely derogate as a "19th century position held by few or no modern scholars": https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030908929502006508

Source from 1987 discussing equation of Yahweh with Molek: https://www.jstor.org/stable/603310?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Book from 2017: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781646022014/html See chapter 1 -- that Molek is in fact a deity but that this deity is none other than Yahweh himself 87.208.148.99 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It is customary not to re-add material that has been removed until consensus has been reached at the talk page, see WP:BRD. Even if we keep any of your addition, it is certainly way too long and blows the scale of this view out of proportion.

The medieval view is mentioned chronologically at the beginning of the section to explain the consensus view prior to 1935.

The 2017 book mentions the notion that Molech is Yahweh as a minor view held by one early-mid 20th-century, see p. 20: Notably, though, Buber did not suggest that this is an instance of Israelite polytheism or that one should attempt to identify a “Molek” deity to whom children were sacrificed. Instead, in Buber’s view, “Molek” refers to “Melekh JHWH,” a popular, syncretistic mutation of the Yahwistic cult centered in the Hinnom Valley.

I can find no mention of this theory in the JSTOR book review: it mentions the entirely different question of whether such sacrifices were meant for Yahweh or another god. If I'm wrong, please identify the page and provide a quote.

I cannot access the Sage journal article. Please provide quotes.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You can see the notes directly on the link I provided for the Sage article; these directly reference the dispute over whether Yahweh can be identified with Molek.

Noting the works already cited by Day and Heider in the article --

Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, p. 215, cites not only Buber (one of the most prominent 20th century Jewish theologians, far from a "minor" figure), but also Walther Eichrodt and Hubert Irsigler supporting same position during the mid-late 20th century. This is not an obscure position and was not confined to 19th century theology but is repeatedly taken up from that time forward.

Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment devotes much/most of the sections overviewing 19th and 20th century scholarship to this specific dispute, citing the same same authors we are presently citing in the article and others, and throughout also includes nuanced discussion referencing other authors concerning human sacrifices made to Yahweh and whether these happened through syncretism with an "older" religion.

Much of this material was already included in the article for years and was recently inappropriately removed without any discussion much less consensus for removal. This is factual content that is well-sourced and key to much recent scholarly discussion on the subject and removing it seems strange and bordering on a type of political censorship (Heider notes that many of the initial objections to the equation of Yahweh with Moloch were not scholarly, but were motivated by sectarian sensitivities -- in this article, we are not even "advocating" this interpretation, but merely describing its existence and clear importance in scholarship about the subject). 87.208.148.99 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to add a mention of the view that Moloch might have been a form of Yahweh to the existing text. This should satisfy your desire for it to be there. As for the rest:

I asked for quotes. You have not provided any. You cannot expect me to rely on your summary of positions. If Buber's view is significant it can be included (and note there is a difference between a "minor scholar" and a "minor" i.e. minority view), but not as a three paragraph appendix to the main views expressed post 1980s. Moreover, two of the paragraphs are sourced to nineteenth-century works, when WP:AGEMATTERS. The only sections that are sourced to modern scholars (on human sacrifice) are already discussed elsewhere. Even the mid-20th century stuff is old - why cite it when we have modern scholarship by Xella and Stavrakopoulou (not to mention Day, Dewrell, and others) that affirms that there probably were such sacrifices in Israel and is already cited in the body?

In any case, the majority view today is that Moloch wasn't a deity at all.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I have neutrally advertised our dispute in several WikiProjects to see if anyone else wants to weight in on your edit versus my one sentence version.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Your current version looks better. I will take some time to have a look at it.

You brought up Flaubert in your latest edit summary. I never got around to fixing the section on literature, but I agree that it should be trimmed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Weighing on the issue since Ermenrich asked for help on the ANE project talk page.

WP:AGEMATTERS is really that needs to be said, and as far as I am aware the view that at most a type of sacrifice is presumably meant as opposed to a deity is indeed the modern consensus. Consistent push against promotion of outdated views on wikipedia is long overdue, there is no reason for articles on history of religion to be held to standards lower than these on astronomy or paleontology, and nobody would seriously advocate for offering more spotlight to vintage "scholarship" there. Just because something was here since 2016 does not mean it should stay in such a place forever if it does not actually reflect academic consensus. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you HaniwaEnthusiast. Based on the consensus here I have summarized the two paragraphs into the single sentence I've added. I don't think we need the details of 19th century arguments about a single interpretation of Moloch, especially over two-three paragraphs.

If I'm wrong, IP, and I've left something vital out, please let me know and we can revisit the issue here on the talk page, but please do not again simply edit war about including your preferred version.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Canaanite God

Moloch is documented as a Canaanite God. That should be mentioned in the intro. Simply mentioning he is a character mentioned in the Hebrew Bible is not enough and he’s mentioned elsewhere. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you read the article beyond the first line of the lead?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously- modern theorizing doesn’t present as facts. They’re still just theories. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Fact: he was considered the god of the Ammonites Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also I am not here to argue with you. The revisionism that you’re doing via language is pretty obvious to me. We both know what’s up and what your intentions are. Have a good day. I won’t be proceeding with this. You win, as usual. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not "fact". Many scholars think that the line you are quoting is a mistake for Milcom, who is actually described as the god of the Ammonites elsewhere.

Anyway, we don't use the Bible itself as a source here, we need WP:reliable sources, that is, secondary sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't know what you think my intentions are. To lead people into the false worship of Moloch, horrid King besmear'd with blood / Of human sacrifice, and parents tears? In any case, we use reliable, scholarly, secondary sources around here. There's little evidence for a god named Moloch even in the Bible itself (the Kings reference you brought up appears to be a mistake) and plenty that "mlk" is a form of sacrifice.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Mlk is just the Semitic root for “king”, “ruler”, etc. You’re simply theorizing and speculating that the word that has historically always meant king, ruler, etc now specifically means “a form of sacrifice”. You don’t even know if it doesn’t mean sacrifice for mlk. You talk about reliable sources, the entire thread here is about theorizing. And there really is no such thing as reliable sourcing. All sources are biased in one way or another, so you can go ahead and stop. You’re talking about acceptable sources by western academia and politics.

byeeee Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I knew you'd keep replying ;-). In fact there are thousands of Carthaginian inscriptions that use mlk to refer to a form of sacrifice. The Punic language is closely related to Hebrew and all scholars accept that mlk had that meaning there, even those who argue for the existence of a god Moloch. And I am not speculating or theorizing, I'm reporting what reliable sources say. And no, not all sources are reliable, read our WP:reliable sources policy.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Moloch Canaanite God

Should be included in the intro. Since it is generally accepted that the Hebrew Bible speaks of moloch as the god of the Canaanite Ammonites.

According the Hebrew bible: You shall not give any of your children to offer them [by fire as a sacrifice] to Molech [the god of the Ammonites], nor shall you profane the name of your God [by honoring idols as gods]. I am the Lord.

The Hebrew Bible that you are sourcing the mention of Moloch accepts that he was the god of the Ammonites. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As I already said: read the next paragraph of the lead, and if that isn't enough for you, there's an entire section about whether Moloch was a god or not (many scholars think not).--Ermenrich (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The revisionism that you’re attempting to perpetrate here is fairly obvious based on the pages you’ve edited. It’s very clear what narrative you’re attempting to push here and what history you are rewriting. I won’t be proceeding with this discussion. But just know that your tactics don’t go unnoticed. Keep rewriting history to suit your narrative. Bias. Have a good day. Convo over Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, friend, the mainstream universities of Israel are technically western academia. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is internationalist, there is no East vs. West therein. Culturally and politically, Israel counts as a "Western" country. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey friend, Israeli sources are biased and not reliable since they actively participate in the erasure of any Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian history in the region. In fact I would redirect you to “Israeli revisionism”. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

So, now Israelis erase their own history? Does not make much sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Erasing the history of indigenous Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians from the Levant is Israeli revisionism. I didn’t say Israelis erase their history. I am saying Israeli revisionism. 😂 Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, convo is over. It’s clear that you are on the side of Israeli revisionism. Have a good day Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say Israelis erase their history.—no, but that's logically implied by your argument about MLK.

Think it through: you made too many claims, and some of them are mutually exclusive. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Convo is over you say, Lebenesebebe123, even as you keep posting more inane accusations. You will never win an argument on Wikipedia by claiming that mainstream scholarship is biased - Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, it does not evaluation. On top of that, I don’t think any of the sources currently cited for Moloch not being a god are Israeli- the idea originated with a German and we currently cite Italian and British scholars on it in numerous locations on the article. Besides, Moloch is horrific: why would you want to claim him as an ancestral god of yours?.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

The article currently says that there are basically two theories about the meaning of Moloch: a name for a God or the word for sacrifice itself. Okay, but on wiktionary, the etymology says this:

New Latin, from Μολόχ (Molókh), Greek rendition of Hebrew מולך (mólekh, “Moloch”), borrowed from Ammonite 𐤌𐤋𐤊 (mlk), an Ammonite god mentioned in the Pentateuch, worshipped by Canaanites and Phoenicians, said to have demanded child-sacrifice.

So the Hebrew name for Moloch was borrowed from inherited, while the Hebrew word for king was inherited from an earlier Semitic form. In other words, how likely is it really that the word Moloch would mean 'sacrifice'? In any case, I think the wikipedia article should account for this, because it might very well be that the scholarly positions referenced here are dated. 2001:1C02:1990:A900:F22C:41F7:3B7A:2D77 (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

By 'dated', by the way, I mean even recent publications might use dated linguistic views etc. 2001:1C02:1990:A900:F22C:41F7:3B7A:2D77 (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would you assume Wikipedia is dated and not Wiktionary? Wiktionary has very low sourcing requirements. I’ve never seen anyone say that the word moloch is definitely “borrowed” like it does. Looks like WP:OR to me. If you want to know how likely it is Moloch means sacrifice, read the article. The literature used here is all recent.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

…and as I suspected, the Wiktionary entry has no sources…—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, good question, but I was not saying Wikipedia itself is dated or that the literature cited here is not recent. You're right that Wiktionary has lower standards for references, but I know that the people who work conscientiously on the etymology sections there, basically do the same work as you guys do on here. 2001:1C02:1990:A900:D095:29B0:DD63:D058 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)