Editing Moloch (section)

===As a form of sacrifice===
[[File:Stèles tophet Carthage.jpg|thumb|[[Stele|Stelas]] from the [[Tophet]] in [[Carthage]], where {{lang|xpu|mlk}} sacrifices or rituals are attested via inscription.]]
In 1935, [[Otto Eissfeldt]] proposed, on the basis of [[Punic (language)|Punic inscriptions]], that Moloch was a form of sacrifice rather than a deity.{{sfn|Stavrakopoulou|2013|p=144}} Punic inscriptions commonly associate the word {{lang|xpu|mlk}} with three other words: {{lang|xpu|ʾmr}} (lamb), {{lang|xpu|bʿl}} (citizen) and {{lang|xpu|ʾdm}} (human being). {{lang|xpu|bʿl}} and {{lang|xpu|ʾdm}} never occur in the same description and appear to be interchangeable.{{sfn|Xella|2013|p=269}} Other words that sometimes occur are {{lang|he|bšr}} (flesh).{{sfn|Holm|2005|p=7134}} When put together with {{lang|xpu|mlk}}, these words indicate a "{{lang|xpu|mlk}}-sacrifice consisting of...".{{sfn|Xella|2013|p=269}} The Biblical term {{lang|he|lammolekh}} would thus be translated not as "to Moloch", as normally translated, but as "as a molk-sacrifice", a meaning consistent with uses of the Hebrew preposition {{lang|he|la}} elsewhere.{{sfn|Reynolds|2007|pp=144-145}} Bennie Reynolds further argues that Jeremiah's use of ''Moloch'' in conjunction with [[Baal]] in Jer 32:35 is parallel to his use of "burnt offering" and Baal in Jeremiah 19:4–5.{{sfn|Reynolds|2007|pp=445-446}}

The view that Moloch refers to a type of sacrifice was challenged by John Day and George Heider in the 1980s.{{sfn|Stavrakopoulou|2013|pp=144-145}} Day and Heider argued that it was unlikely that biblical commentators had misunderstood an earlier term for a sacrifice as a deity and that Leviticus 20:5's mention of "whoring after Moloch" necessarily implied that Moloch was a god.{{sfn|Day|2000|pp=209-210}}{{sfn|Heider |1999 |pp=582-583}} Day and Heider nevertheless accepted that ''mlk'' was a sacrificial term in Punic, but argue that it did not originate in Phoenicia and that it was not brought back to Phoenicia by the Punic diaspora. More recently, Anthony Frendo argues that the Hebrew equivalent to Punic {{lang|xpu|ylk}} (the root of Punic {{lang|xpu|mlk}}) is the verb {{lang|he|‘br}} "to pass over"; in Frendo's view, this means that the Hebrew Moloch is not derived from the same root as Punic {{lang|xpu|mlk}}.{{sfn|Frendo|2016|p=349}}

Since Day's and Heider's objections, a growing number of scholars have come to believe that Moloch refers to the ''mulk'' sacrifice rather than a deity.{{sfn|Stavrakopoulou|2013|p=147}} [[Francesca Stavrakopoulou]] argues that "because both Heider and Day accept Eissfeldt's interpretation of Phoenician-Punic {{lang|xpu|mlk}} as a sacrificial term, their positions are at once compromised by the possibility that biblical {{lang|he|mōlekh}} could well function in a similar way as a technical term for a type of sacrifice".{{sfn|Stavrakopoulou|2013|p=145}} She further argues that "whoring after Moloch" does not need to imply a deity as {{lang|xpu|mlk}} refers to both the act of sacrificing and the thing sacrificed, allowing an interpretation of "whor[ing] after the mlk-offering".{{sfn|Stavrakopoulou|2013|p=145}} Heath Dewrell argues that the translation of Leviticus 20:5 in the [[Septuagint]], which substitutes {{langx|el|ἄρχοντας}} "[[archon]]s, princes" for ''Moloch'', implies that the biblical [[urtext (biblical studies)|urtext]] did not include the phrase "whoring after Moloch".{{sfn|Dewrell|2017|pp=30-35}} Bennie Reynolds further notes that at least one inscription from [[Tyre, Lebanon|Tyre]] does appear to mention {{lang|xpu|mlk}} sacrifice (''RES'' 367); therefore Day and Heider are incorrect that the practice is unattested in Canaan (Phoenicia). Reynolds also argues for further parallels.{{sfn|Reynolds|2007|pp=146-150}} However, Dewrell argues that the inscription is probably a modern forgery based on the unusual layout of the text and linguistic abnormalities, among other reasons.{{sfn|Dewrell|2016|pp=496-499}}

Among scholars who believe that Moloch refers to a form of sacrifice, debate remains as to whether the Israelite ''mlk'' sacrifices were offered to Yahweh or another deity.{{sfn|Xella|2013|p=265}} Armin Lange suggests that the [[Binding of Isaac]] represents a ''mlk''-sacrifice to Yahweh in which the child is finally substituted with a sheep, noting that Isaac was meant to be a burnt offering.{{sfn|Lange|2007|p=127}} This opinion is shared by Stavrakopoulou, who also points to the sacrifice of [[Jephthah]] of his daughter as a burnt offering.{{sfn|Stavrakopoulou|2013|p=140}} Frendo, while he argues that ''Moloch'' refers to a god, accepts Stavrakopoulou's argument that the sacrifices in the tophet were originally to Yahweh.{{sfn|Frendo|2016|pp=363–364}} Dewrell argues that although {{lang|xpu|mlk}} sacrifices were offered to Yahweh, they were distinct from other forms of human or child sacrifice found in the Bible (such as that of Jephthah) and were a foreign custom imported by the Israelites from the Phoenicians during the reign of [[Ahaz]].{{sfn|Dewrell|2017|pp=144–146}}