{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03573064590013743, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014658726523133303, 'mean_word_length': 4.855227882037534, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Raphael Jospe. Torah and Sophia: The Life and Thought of Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera . Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1988. 505 pp.

Aramean. However, the biblical texts which make this association include the Holiness Code (Lev 18:21), the redactional layer of the Deuteronomistic history in Kings, Isaiah 57, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; these are all late. It is thus quite possible that in reality Molech worship was appropriated from Arameans, and late pre-exilic and exilic biblical texts which tend to always blame the Canaanites have incorrectly attributed it to Canaanites. Day's incorrect assertion forces him to prematurely reject a possible connection between Molech and the Aramean deity Adad-Milki (pp. 41—46), though his own conclusion that Molech = Ugaritic mlk = Akkadian Malik (pp. 46-55) is also quite plausible. His interpretation could have been strengthened by a more detailed treatment of the religious aspects of child sacrifice and their connection to chthonic deities. The skepticism found in Day's treatment of verses incorrectly assigned to Molech (pp. 72-81) is welcome. However, Day seems not to have noticed that most of these "incorrectly assigned" passages are early, so the implication of their rejection is that Molech may not be attested to in the Bible before the exile. This would have very important implications concerning the origin and extent of Molech worship in Israel, but Day has not noted this. In sum, the issues surrounding Molech worship are not resolved in this book. It provides a useful, clearly written summary of previous scholarship, and presents detailed technical arguments in a very clear fashion. However, the arguments that it adduces are often not fully compelling. It has not adequately paid attention to literature found in biblical commentaries and to general biblical issues, such as the dating of biblical texts. Finally, it has not directly engaged the horror of child-sacrifice or explored why it was practiced. In this regard, Heider's monograph (see n. 1), which explicitly raises the question "[So] why did the parents do it?" (pp. 383, 407), is a more compelling treatment of the problems associated with Molech.