The Bible does not give a very clear description of Ca- naanitish idolatrj% As an abominable thing, to be root- ed out and cast into oblivion, nothing is needlessly said of it. The appellation Baal, ruler, or possessor, implies supremacy, ami connects the chief Canaanitish divinity with the Syrian Adonis. He was the god of the Canaan- itish city Zidon, or Sidon, where "Ashtoreth, the abom- ination of the Zidonians," was also special!}' worshipped. In the Judge-period we read of Baalim and Ashteroth in the plural, probably indicating various local forms of these divinities, but perhaps merely the worship of many images. The worship of Baal was connected with that of the groves, which we take to have been representations of trees or other vegetable products. Sea High Place. In Ahab's time a temple was built for Baal, where there was an image. His worshippers sacrificed in garments provided by the priests ; and his prophets, seeking to propitiate him, were wont to cry and cut themselves with swords and lances. Respecting Ashtoreth we know less from Scripture. Her name is not derivable from any Shemitic root. It is equivalent to tlie Ishtar of the cuneiform inscriptions, the name of the Assyrian or Babylonian Venns, the goddess of the planet. Tlie identity of the Canaanitish and the Assyr- ian or Babvlonian goddess is further shown by the con- nection of the former with star-worship. In the Iranian languages we find a close radical resemblance to .Ishto- reth and Ishtar in the Persian, Zend $ta?-a, Sansk. stra, aan'ip, stern, all equivalent to our " star." This deriva- tion confirms our opinion that the high nature-worship of the Babylonians and Assyrians was of Aryan origin. As no other Canaanitish divinities are noticed in Scrip- ture, it seems probable that Baal and Ashtoreth were
alone worshipped by the nations of Canaan. Among the neighboring tribes we find, besides these, otlier names of idols, and we have to inquire whether tliey apply to different idols or are merely different appella- tions.
Beginning with the Abrahamitic tribes, we find IMo- lech, Malcham, or Milcom ("^^, ^?^ '?, ^3^"?) spoken of as the idol of the Ammonites. Tliis name, in the first form, always has tiic article, and undoubtedly signifies the Hriff ("=5211, equivalent to T(^^"^), for it is indiffer- ently used as a proper name and as an appellative with a snfiix (comp. Jer. xlix, 1, 3, with Amos i, 15). Milcom is from Molech or its root, with d formative, and ]Mal- cham is probably a dialectic variation, if the points are to be relied u|}on. Molech was regarded by the Am- monites as their king. When David captured Kabbah, we are told that " he took IMalcham's crown from off his head, the Aveight whereof [was] a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was [set] on David's head" (2 Sam. xii, 30; comp. 1 Chron. xx, 2). The prophets speak of this idol as ruler of the children of Ammon, and doomed to go into captivity with his priests and princes (Jer. xlix, 1, 3 ; Amos i, 15). The worship of jMolech was performed at high places, and children were sacrificed to him by their parents, being cast into fires. This hor- rible practice prevailed at Carthage, where chiklren were sacrified to their chief divinity, Baal, called at Tj-re " Melcarth, lord (Baal) of Tyre" "iri bs'3 nipb^ (Inscr. Melit, Biling. ap. Gesen. Lex. s. v. ^"3), the first of whicli words signifies kinr/ of the city, for T\~\p^ "?'?■ There can therefore be no doubt that Molech was a local form of the chief idol of Canaan, and it is by no means certain that this name was limited to the Ammonitish worship, as we shall see in speaking of the idolatry of the Israel- ites in the Desert.
We know for certain of but one IMoabitish divinity, as of but one Ammonitish. Chemosh appears to have held the same place as INIolech, although our information re- specting him is less f.:'.l. Moab was the "people of Chemosh" (Numb, xxi, 29 ; Jer. jjviii, 46), and Chemosh was doomed to captivity with his priests and princes (Jer. xlviii, 7). In one place Chemosh is spoken of as the god of the king of the children of Amnion, whom Jephthali conquered (Judg. xi, 24) ; but it is to be re- marked that the cities held by this king, which Jeph- thah took, were not originally Ammonitish, and were apparently claimed as once held by the Moabites (21- 26 ; comp. Numb, xxi, 23-30), so that at this time ]\Ioab and Ammon were probably united, or the Ammonites ruled by a INIoabitish chief. The etymology of Che- mosh is doubtful, but it is clear that he was distinct from JMolech. There is no positive trace of the cruel rites of the idol of the Ammonites, and it is unlikely that the settled Jloabites should have had the same savage disposition as their wild brethren on the north. There is, however, a general resemblance in the regal character assigned to both idols and their soUtarj-- posi- tion. Chemosh, theref(ire, like Molech, was probably a form of Baal. Both tribes appear to have had other idols, for we read of the worship, by the Israelites, of " the gods of jMoab, and the gods of the children of Am- mon" (Judg. X, 6) ; but, as there are other plurals in the passage, it is possible that this may be a general expres- sion. Yet, in saying this, we do not mean to suggest that there was any monotheistic form of Canaanitish idola- try. There is s^nie difficulty in ascertaining whether Baal-Peor, or Peor, was a Moabitish idol. The Israelites, while encamped at Shlttim, were seduced by the women of Moab and Midian, and joined them in the worship of Baal-Peor. There is no notice of any later instance of this idolatry. It seems, therefore, not to have been na- tional to Moab, and, if so, it may have been borrowed, and ■Midianitish, or else local, and Canaanitish. The former idea is supported by the apparent connection of prosti- tution, even of women of rank, with the worship of