from PrisonPlanet Website

2 January 2005
 

Recently re-discovered photos depicting scenes from early 20th century Bohemian Grove gatherings appear to contradict official claims that a 'mock' sacrifice is made and that real humans have never been sacrificed in the ritual.

These photos originally appeared on the Berkeley University of California website, which is often used as a mouthpiece for the Bohemian Grove Club.

 

See full Photo Galley dated 1906 - 1909
 

CLICK PHOTOS FOR ENLARGEMENTS

The first photograph appears to show a lynching or public execution. If the body is a mannequin it is certainly very authentic. Click to see the enlargement, judging by the look of the hand this is a real person.

There can be little doubt about the second photo. The person is clearly a black child or a midget. He is strapped down on a board. One of the figures in the foreground appears to be a policeman. The picture is dated 1909.

An old photo from Bohemian Grove on the National Geographic website appeared with the following caption:

Power Party
Photograph by Gabriel Moulin, 1915

To purge himself of worldly concerns, a member of the elite Bohemian Club participated in a 1915 Cremation of Care ceremony—complete with candles and a robed and hooded comrade to guide him. This private club of influential men still meets annually north of San Francisco and uses this symbolic ritual to kick off its summer retreat. But today the ceremony involves burning a mummy-like effigy named Care at the foot of the group's mascot: a 40-foot-tall (12-meter-tall) concrete owl.

One of the ancient and now well researched Canaanite deities that was and still is worshipped by the 'Brotherhood' is often symbolized as an owl and is referred to as Molech (sometimes Moloch).

In July 2000 Alex Jones successfully infiltrated Bohemian Grove and documented the Cremation of Care sacrificial ceremony. For full details, click here.

The ceremony includes a ritualistic 'mock' sacrifice in worship of Molech, which is represented by a 40-50 foot horned statue (seen above).


 From the Jewish Encyclopedia
Moloch (Hebrew Molech, king).

A divinity worshipped by the idolatrous Israelites. The Hebrew pointing Molech does not represent the original pronunciation of the name, any more than the Greek vocalization Moloch found in the LXX and in the Acts (vii, 43). The primitive title of this god was very probably Melech, "king", the consonants of which came to be combined through derision with the vowels of the word Bosheth, "shame". As the word Moloch (A.V. Molech) means king, it is difficult in several places of the Old Testament to determine whether it should be considered as the proper name of a deity or as a simple appellative. The passages of the original text in which the name stands probably for that of a god are Lev., xviii, 21; xx, 2-5; III (A. V. I) Kings, xi, 7; IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 10; Is., xxx, 33; lvii, 9; Jer., xxxii, 35.

 

The chief feature of Moloch's worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was "to pass through the fire", a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death. The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably "place of abomination"), in the valley of Geennom.

 

According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected "a temple" for Moloch "on the hill over against Jerusalem", and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel. The custom of causing one's children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezech. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremias (Jerem. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity.

On the basis of the Hebrew reading of III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Moloch has often been identified with Milcom, the national god of the Ammonites, but this identification cannot be considered as probable: as shown by the Greek Versions, the original reading of III (I) Kings, xi, 7, was not Molech but Milchom [cf. also III (I) Kings, xi, 5, 33]; and according to Deut., xii, 29-31; xviii, 9-14, the passing of children through fire was of Chanaanite origin [cf. IV (II) Kings, xvi, 3].

 

Of late, numerous attempts have been made to prove that in sacrificing their children to Moloch the Israelites simply thought that they were offering them in holocaust to Yahweh. In other words, the Melech to whom child-sacrifices were offered was Yahweh under another name. To uphold this view appeal is made in particular to Jer., vii, 31; xix, 5, and to Ezech., xx, 25-31. 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. The offerings by fire, the probable identity of Moloch with Baal, and the fact that in Assyria and Babylonia Malik, and at Palmyra Malach-bel, were sun-gods, have suggested to many that Moloch was a fire- or sun-god.


MOLOCH (MOLECH).
by Isidore Singer George A. Barton

—Biblical Data:

In the Masoretic text the name is "Molech"; in the Septuagint "Moloch." The earliest mention of Molech is in Lev. xviii. 21, where the Israelite is forbidden to sacrifice any of his children to Molech. Similarly, in Lev. xx. 2-5, it is enacted that a man who sacrifices his seed to Molech shall surely be put to death. Then, curiously, it is provided that he shall be cut off from the congregation.

 

In I Kings xi. 7 it is said that Solomon built a high place for Molech in the mountain "that is before Jerusalem." The same passage calls Molech an Ammonite deity. The Septuagint as quoted in the New Testament (Acts vii. 43) finds a reference to Moloch in Amos v. 26; but this is a doubtful passage. In II Kings xxiii. 10 it is stated that one of the practices to which Josiah put a stop by his reform was that of sacrificing children to Molech, and that the place where this form of worship had been practiced was at Topheth, "in the valley of the children of Hinnom." This statement is confirmed by Jer. xxxii. 35.

 

From II Kings xxi. 6 it may be inferred that this worship was introduced during the reign of Manasseh. The impression left by an uncritical reading of these passages is that Molech-worship, with its rite of child-sacrifice, was introduced from Ammon during the seventh century B.C.

Nature of the Worship
—Critical View:

The name "Molech," later corrupted into "Moloch," is an intentional mispointing of "Melek," after the analogy of "bosheth" (comp. Hoffmann in Stade's "Zeitschrift," iii. 124). As to the rites which the worshipers of Molech performed, it has sometimes been inferred, from the phrase "pass through the fire to Molech," that children were made to pass between two lines of fire as a kind of consecration or februation; but it is clear from Isa. lvii. 5 and Jer. xix. 5 that the children were killed and burned. The whole point of the offering consisted, therefore, in the fact that it was a human sacrifice.

 

From Jer. vii. 31 and Ezek. xx. 25, 26, it is evident that both prophets regarded these human sacrifices as extraordinary offerings to Yhwh. Jeremiah declares that Yhwh had not commanded them, while Ezekiel says Yhwh polluted the Israelites in their offerings by permitting them to sacrifice their first-born, so that through chastisement they might know that Yhwh was Yhwh. The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that in the last days of the kingdom human sacrifices were offered to Yhwh as King or Counselor of the nation and that the Prophets disapproved of it and denounced it because it was introduced from outside as an imitation of a heathen cult and because of its barbarity. In course of time the pointing of "Melek" was changed to "Molech" to still further stigmatize the rites.

Motive of Sacrifices

The motive for these sacrifices is not far to seek. It is given in Micah vi. 7: "Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" In the midst of the disasters which were befalling the nation men felt that if the favor of Yhwh could be regained it was worth any price they could pay. Their Semitic kindred worshiped their gods with offerings of their children, and in their desperation the Israelites did the same.

 

For some reason, perhaps because not all the priestly and prophetic circles approved of the movement, they made the offerings, not in the Temple, but at an altar or pyre called "Tapheth" (LXX.), erected in the valley of Hinnom (comp. W. R. Smith, "Rel. of Sem." 2d ed., p. 372). "Tapheth," also, was later pointed "Topheth," after the analogy of "bosheth." In connection with these extraordinary offerings the worshipers continued the regular Temple sacrifices to Yhwh (Ezek. xxiii. 39).

Babylonian Cylinder Representing Sacrifice of a Child

(From Menant, "Glyptique Orientale")

From the fact that I Kings xi. 7 calls Molech the "abomination of the children of Ammon" it was formerly assumed that this worship was an imitation of an Ammonite cult. But so little is known of the Ammonite religion that more recent scholarship has looked elsewhere for the source. Because of the mention in II Kings xvii. 31 of Adrammelech (= Adar-malik) and Anammelech (=Anu-malik) as gods of Sepharvaim transplanted to Samaria, it has been inferred that this form of worship was borrowed from Babylonia (comp. Bäthgen, "Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgesch." pp, 238 et seq.).

 

This view rests on the supposition that "Sepharvaim" is equal to "Sippar," which probably is not the case. Even if it were, Anu and Adar were not gods of Sippar; Shamash was god of that city. From this verse, therefore, a Babylonian or Assyrian origin can not be demonstrated.

Support for this view has been sought also in Amos v. 26. If, as is probable, Siccuth and Chiun in that passage are names or epithets of Babylonian deities (comp. Chiun), the use of "Melek" in connection with these affords no sound basis for argument. The whole passage may be, as Wellhausen and Nowack believe, a late gloss introduced on account of II Kings xvii. 31, and is in any case too obscure to build upon.

 

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the sacrifice of the first-born was a feature of the worship of Babylonian deities. Because child-sacrifice was a prominent feature of the worship of the Phenician Malik-Baal-Kronos, Moore (in Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl.") seeks to prove that the worship of Moloch was introduced from Phoenicia. The evidence of its existence in Phoenicia and her colonies is especially strong. Diodorus Siculus (xx. 14) tells how the Carthaginians in a siege sacrificed two hundred boys to Kronos. Burning was an important feature of the rite.

 

Bibliography:

  • W. R. Smith, Rel. of Sem. 2d ed., pp. 372 et seq.

  • Bäthgen, Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgesch. 1888, pp. 237 et seq.;

  • Moore, The Image of Moloch, in Jour. Bib. Lit. 1897, xvi. 161 et seq.;

  • M. J. Lagrange, Etudes sur les Religions Sémitiques, 1903, pp. 99-109.S.

  • Moloch - Demonology - A Gallery of Demons Historical account of demonology and evil in http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/mythology/moloch.asp
     

Further depictions of Molech