Question: Do you think that there is any way that Baal and Moloch, with all that they have in common, could be the same god, or are they just two separate gods that just happen to have a lot in common?
Well, no, I don't think they're the same god. They're pretty clearly distinct figures. But hey, we might as well talk about those things they have in common!
There are really only two things Baal and Moloch have in common: both have names that can be used as titles (usually translated as "lord" and "king", respectively), and both are associated with bulls.
The etymological similarity sounds like a connection in English, but that's specifically because it's in translation; in the original language (what we've reconstructed of it, anyway), the two words are clearly separate and have different connotations. Baal is more accurately transliterated from the symbols as b'l, although we're fairly certain of the vowels thanks to contextual evidence from Ras Shamra and Hebrew sources, and while it's most often translated as "lord", it's actually much closer to "owner" or even "husband". When used as a verb, it actually means "he marries", and the feminine form of the noun, Baalah, likewise refers not just to a lady in power but also to a mistress of a household and a wife. It's not surprising that Baal's epithet implies husbandliness along with control and ownership, because those are the trifecta of Baal's power. He's not only the king of his pantheon but also the very virile and potent husband of Anat and Astarte and the general master of the universe. The word suits him, and its plethora of associations also makes it an easy title to apply to other deities in the area, both because it allows them to embody some of those same qualities of control and also to borrow some of big Baal's glory.
Moloch, on the other hand, is properly named mlk, which is the proper noun meaning king or ruler. Debate rages on in the scholarly community over whether or not Moloch's name is actually the same as mlk, however, because unlike b'l we aren't a hundred percent sure what vowels are involved and whether or not they might change the meaning of the word. Traditionally, scholars have reconstructed the word "king" as melek and assumed that the Hebrew Bible replaced the vowel with an O in order to make a disrespectful pun out of the name by rhyming it with the word boseth, which means "shameful" (something the Hebrews had a keen interest in seeing that people thought of the Canaanite gods). But mlk is also used in other contexts, most notably burnt sacrifices, which has split scholars down the middle from believing that this proves the burning cult belongs to Moloch all the way to the other extreme of deciding that there was no such god as Moloch at all and all mentions of him must be referring to burnt sacrifices. Still others believe that there must have been totally different vowels for the god's proper name and that it wasn't the same as the word for "king" at all, which is just as unprovable as the rest. Poor Moloch has a lot less direct attestation that Baal since he isn't included in the Ras Shamra tablets, and as a result there's a lot more rampant confusion about his name and what exactly it, and he, mean.
So you can see that the etymological connection between their names really isn't much of one. In English, it would be like saying that a guy named Master of the House obviously had the same name as another guy named King, and there's a possibility that one or both of them aren't really named that in the first place. The similarities are superficial.
They do, however, both share a connection to the bull as a totem animal! That's totally legit! Or at least, as legit as we can get. Gods associated with bulls are traditional in the Middle East and Mediterranean, where the animal is associated with strength, virility and power, and the two of them are keeping company with the likes of Apis, Ashur, Dionysus, Gugalanna, Marduk, Mithra, Qos, Teshub and Zeus, all powerful figures associated with manliness (and those are by no means the only ones). It's not surprising that more than one god in the same area might be associated with the bull, especially in a culture like the Canaanites where different city states may celebrate their local patron gods with all the trappings of royalty regardless of what else they do.
In light of all that, I don't see much reason to assume that Baal and Moloch are the same guy. But that doesn't mean you can't play with their possible connection in a game; Moloch's kind of a pain in the ass, and when Baal's not looking it's totally possible he might have at some point (maybe even now!) tried to seize power or convince mortals that he was in fact Baal. Baal's notoriously jealous of his power and might always be looking for possible dissidents in his pantheon, including Moloch, and assume in his paranoia that the god might be plotting against him, or maybe one or both gods are playing a long game of Fatebonds, trying to dislodge the other.
My favorite wacky theory to connect the two is the idea that Moloch, who has no distinct genealogy in Canaanite myth, might be an ancient son of Baal. On the way to confronting Mot, Baal famously has sex with a heifer (depending on the translator, sometimes assumed to be Anat in animal form) and has a calf-like child, which he then offers up to death (and Mot) as a sacrifice before heading into the underworld. Moloch's bull and death connotations, not to mention his nasty temperament, could be a result of this origin story, which has no real mythological backing but is pretty entertaining anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment