THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
45C
stretch out; and there are representations of bullheaded deities in the Semitic region. But these can not be identified securely with Melkarth or with a " melek-deity." Diodorus Siculus describes the statue of the Carthaginian Kronos as human in form with the arms outstretched — a feature used in the rabbinic descriptions already alluded to. Yet Melkarth is not to be conceived wholly as a malign divinity, since compounds such as " Melkarth is gracious," "Melkarth saves," "Melkarth hears (answers) " are known. Human sacrifice seems rather abnormal among the Semites. There are traces or direct testimony for it among Aramaeans (Palmyrenes) and Phenicians, and it appears as a phenomenon of a decadent stage in religious development. Such a feature is not unusual in the development of a religion when distrust of ordinary means of obtaining divine favor has entered. It must be noted, however, that human sacrifice does not imply a special divinity to whom it is offered; emergency may be conceived to warrant it as a present to any god. In such a case it is the result of a common anthropopathism — what is of highest value to mortals is held in the same estimate by the gods. Attempts have been made by Jewish interpreters and others to minimize the worship by reducing the practise to the simple custom of passing children through the fire for purposes of purification and not as sacrificial victims. This custom is one widely prevalent among primitive peoples, fire and water being recognized as the two purgative elements. Such a practise is described by Theodoret (on II Kings, quest, xlvii.), and was forbidden by the Trullan Synod of 692 (canon 65; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, iii. 338, Eng. transl., v. 232). But the passages cited above are decisive of the fact of sacrifice. [Indeed the descriptive phrase does not mean " to pass through " but " to pass over," " to transfer," i.e., " to dedicate or offer," as is shown by its use in Ex. xiii. 12, where Yahweh is the object of worship and there is no allusion to fire, j. t. m.J. The attempt to minimize the wickedness is no more successful here than in the case of Jephthah's daughter.
A factor in the question of the date of the introduction of this practise among the Hebrews has been the assumption of the practical identity of Moloch and Milcom (q.v.). The basis for this is the linguistic fact that the same word " king " is at the root of both forms. Were the identity 6. Date of the two established, supposing al-
of Intro- ways that there were a deity Moloch, duction the date of the introduction of the cult into Israel, into Israel would be fixed by I Kings xi. in the time of Solomon. But several sets of data are against this. (1) The sacrifice of children is not in the Old Testament associated with Milcom. (2) The place of worship of the two cults was different. (3) In the category of the sins of Solomon in the chapter cited the sacrifice of children does not appear; he burned incense and sacrificed to the gods of the peoples, but there is silence as to human sacrifice. (4) The condemnation of this sin by the prophets is not in evidence till a late period, and it is inconceivable that such a practise could have escaped the denunciation of
early prophets had it existed. The cases of human sacrifice in Israel prior to Solomon do not suggest a custom of offering children. The case of Abraham and Isaac is altogether individual, the instance being quite exceptional; that of Jephthah was emergential in nature and appears also as unusual. It is true that something sacrificial is imported intc the killing of Agag, whom Samuel hewed to pieces " before the Lord " (I Sam. xv. 33), but there is no connection between this example and the offering of children by fire. II Sam. xii. 31 can not be adduced, since the corrected Hebrew text affords the reading " made them labor at the brick kiln " for " made them pass through the brick kiln " (S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, pp, 226-229, Oxford, 1890). The age of Solomon as the period of the introduction of the cult may be dismissed. There is nothing at all to connect Ahab or Jezebel with the cult except inference based on Jezebel's derivation from Tyre where it was known to exist. The earliest definite statement of this practise is in connection with Ahaz (II Kings xvi. 3; cf. II Chron. xxviii. 3). The historicity of the passage is questioned on the ground of the silence of the prophets of his own and the immediately following period. That the objection is not insuperable in this instance is shown by those who defend the historicity by supposing that the sacrifice (the case is singular, " his son ") was emergential and in some measure like that of Mesha (II Kings iii. 26). Further, that Ahaz was inclined to syncretism, or at least to following fashions of worship, is shown by the passage II Kings xvi. 10-13. Moreover, Isa. xxx. 33 plays suggestively upon the words Tophet and melek (Driver regards the passage as Isaianic, but Guthe, Cheyne, and others refer verses 27-33 to the exilic period). Isa. viii. 21 (which should read : " curse the house of their king and their God," see Isaiah, II., 2, § 2) can not be brought into this connection since " their king " refers to Yahweh, cf . Isa. vi. 5 — unless the cult was one imposed upon his worship and " their king " refers to him (cf. Isa. vi. 5 and see below, § 8). Manasseh is the next king connected with the sacrifice of children (II Kings xxi. 6; cf. II Chron. xxxiii. 6, where Tophet is mentioned). To the extension of the practise under Manasseh may be due the passages in Deuteronomy (xii. 31, xviii. 10), the one denunciatory and the other prohibitory. They seem to show that just before the time of Jeremiah the practise had become one of which it was necessary that the legislators take note — the cult had become prominent with a definite locus. It is not surprising therefore that Josiah " defiled Topheth " (II Kings xxiii. 10) so as to make it a place unfit for sacrificial purposes. The passages cited from Jeremiah (xix. 5, xxxii. 35) and Ezekiel show a renewed prevalence during the last days of the Judaic kingdom. Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2 belong to an early stratum of the priest code, while Isa. Ivii. 5, 9 look back on preexilic or early exilic practise. The indications therefore are that it was introduced and in force under Manasseh.
It was long the custom, in this as in other matters, on account of inexact knowledge of Assyrian and Babylonian practises, to refer the origin of the