Scholars who do not believe that Moloch represents a deity instead compare the name to inscriptions in the closely related Punic language where the word ( or ) refers to a type of sacrifice, a connection first proposed by Otto Eissfeldt (1935). Eissfeldt himself, following Jean-Baptiste Chabot, connected Punic and Moloch to a Syriac verb meaning "to promise", a theory also supported as "the least problematic solution" by Heath Dewrell (2017). Eissfeldt's proposed meaning included both the act and the object of sacrifice. Scholars such as W. von Soden argue that the term is a nominalized causative form of the verb , meaning "to offer", "present", and thus means "the act of presenting" or "thing presented". Kerr instead derives both the Punic and Hebrew word from the verb , which he proposes meant "to own", "to possess" in Proto-Semitic, only later coming to mean "to rule"; the meaning of Moloch would thus originally have been "present", "gift", and later come to mean "sacrifice".
scholars who do not believe that moloch represents a deity instead compare the name to inscriptions in the closely related punic language where the word ( or ) refers to a type of sacrifice a connection first proposed by otto eissfeldt (1935) eissfeldt himself following jean-baptiste chabot connected punic and moloch to a syriac verb meaning "to promise" a theory also supported as "the least problematic solution" by heath dewrell (2017) eissfeldt's proposed meaning included both the act and the object of sacrifice scholars such as w von soden argue that the term is a nominalized causative form of the verb  meaning "to offer" "present" and thus means "the act of presenting" or "thing presented" kerr instead derives both the punic and hebrew word from the verb  which he proposes meant "to own" "to possess" in proto-semitic only later coming to mean "to rule"; the meaning of moloch would thus originally have been "present" "gift" and later come to mean "sacrifice"