of Mileom from which the crown was taken. Per-
haps the ‘Chemarim’ or priests of Zeph 1* were
MOLECH, MOLOCH
priests of Molech (cf. CHEMARIM).
None of the passages which speak of child-sacrifice connect it either with Milcom or the Ammonites, and we do not know how far the Ammonite worship of Mileom resembled the Pheenician worship of Melech.
iii. The worship of Moloch (Melech) in Israel
and the relation of Moloch to J” raise difficult questions : the following facts are clear :—
(a) There was a high-place for Milcom, the god of Ammon, on the Mount of Olives, 1 K 11°, 2 K 235, the erection of which was ascribed to Solomon; 11°* are regarded as Deuteronomic, but ay embody an authentic tradition.
(6) ‘ Passing children through the fire to ham- Melech’ is forbidden in Lv 18” 903. 8 Dt 18” (Melech not named). 2 Καὶ 16 states that Ahaz ‘made his son to pass through the fire,’ so 21° of Manasseh.
The Deuteronomic author of 2 K 17" states that the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom passed their children through the fire. From 2 K 231, Jer 7%-§2 101-18 we learn that such sacrifices were offered at Topheth (wh. see), in the valley of Ben Hinnom, outside Jerusalem; cf. Ps 106% 88. Ezk 1639. 21 2337-39
(c) From Jer 195, where the children sacrificed at Topheth are said to be offered to Baal, it appears that the deity thus worshipped was known both as Baal and Melech.
(d) In Is 6° J” Zebaoth is described as ham-Melech, ‘the ings and is ΠΡ batts spoken of as the ‘ king of Israel,’ Is 44°, cf. Jer 8 ‘her king,’ Mic 2? ‘their king.’ Further, the occurrence of such names as Malchiram 1 Ch 3", Malchishua 18 14”, Ebed-melech Jer 39°, Nathan-melech 2 K 23%, Regem-melech Zec 73, point to the use of Melech as a divine name. Ebed-melech, however, was an Ethiopian ; Nathan-melech, a eunuch, and there- fore probably a foreigner ; and Regem-melech was a Babeloniae Jew.
These facts are venously explained. (1) Melech and Milcom are regarded as absolutely identical, and the child-sacrifices to Melech as part of the worship of Milcom borrowed from the Ammonites. But Melech is probably to be distinguished from Milcom, ef. above; and in 2K 1605 the practice of child-sacrifice is not said to have been borrowed from the Ammonites, but from the Canaanites, cf. Dt 1231.
(2) The worship of Melech by child-sacrifice was borrowed from the Canaanites, and was distinct from the worship of Milcom. This would be sup- ported by 2 K 16° and by the identification of Baal and Melech in Jer 19°. Probably the Tyrian Baal, whose worship Jezebel introduced into the Northern Kingdom, was Melech or Melkarth.
(3) Whichever of the two previous views be accepted, the Melech in question was quite dis- tinct from J”. The use of Melech as a title or even name of J” no more identified Him with the Pheenician Melech, than the use of the title or name Baal identified J” with the Tyrian Baal. As Schultz says (OT Theol., Eng. tr. i. 233 n.), ‘In the oldest sources of the Semitic religion, the god who became J” for the Israelites may not have been different from the one who became Moloch for the Canaanites. But, since the time when Israel and the Hamites Sg orang there was at any rate no kinship between J” and Moloch, not to speak of identity.’
(4) e Melech to whom child-sacrifices were offered was simp y J” under another name (Ben- zinger on 2 Καὶ 23°; Smend, 47 Theol. 271). When J” says, Jer 19°, of the child-sacrifices to Baal, ‘which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind,’ the statement seems to imply that those who offered these sacrifices thought that they were obeying a command of J’,
MOLECH, MOLOCH
ef. Ezk 23°7-®, Similarly, the account of the pro- posed sacrifice of Isaac points to the existence of a practice of offering firstborn sons to J”, which practice was forbidden by the prophetic revelation ; ef. Ex 22% E, and Jephthah’s vow, Jg 11%. This view might imply either that J” and Melech were originally one, and afterwards differentiated by
rophetic teaching; or that two distinct deities, ἣν and Melech, were popularly identified. It can scarcely be that Melech was used as a mere title of J” in connexion with child-sacrifice, without any reference to the Phoenician Melech.
iv. Range of Worship.—Melech is found as a divine name, not only in Ammon and Israel, but in all Semitic peoples of whose religion we have any considerable knowledge. The Assyrians and Bat lonitank had a god Malik; the Sepharvites had Adram-melech and Anam-melech, 2 K 17%. The Pheenicians worshipped Melkarth= Melech Kiriath, ‘king of the city,’ at Tyre, Carthage, etc. The Palmyrenes worshipped Malach- (Baudissin, Studien, p. 193 ff.).
It is generally stated that the Moabite Chemosh was a form of Melech (Baethgen, Beitrage, p. 238 ; Movers, Phén. p. 333 f.). This seems probable on general grounds, on account of the wide extent of the worship of Melech amongst the Semites, and the connexion of Baal and possibly J” with Melech ; and the intimate racial and political relation of Moab and Ammon. But the express beesmony is hardly conclusive. In Jg 11% Chemosh is spoken of as the god of the Ammonites, in a passage often ascribed (Budde, Moore) to R!®, who should have been well informed on the subject. But the whole passage hopelessly confuses Ammon and Moab; the reference to ea may be a aes or the pense may originally have referred to Moab and